Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Notices
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are
recognized as steels with micro-alloying
levels of elements such as chromium, copper,
niobium, titanium, vanadium, and
molybdenum. Motor lamination steels
contain micro-alloying levels of elements
such as silicon and aluminum. AHSS and
UHSS are considered high tensile strength
and high elongation steels, although AHSS
and UHSS are covered whether or not they
are high tensile strength or high elongation
steels.
Subject merchandise includes cold-rolled
steel that has been further processed in a
third country, including but not limited to
annealing, tempering, painting, varnishing,
trimming, cutting, punching, and/or slitting,
or any other processing that would not
otherwise remove the merchandise from the
scope of the investigations if performed in
the country of manufacture of the cold-rolled
steel.
All products that meet the written physical
description, and in which the chemistry
quantities do not exceed any one of the noted
element levels listed above, are within the
scope of these investigations unless
specifically excluded. The following
products are outside of and/or specifically
excluded from the scope of these
investigations:
• Ball bearing steels; 1
• Tool steels; 2
• Silico-manganese steel; 3
• Grain-oriented electrical steels (GOES) as
defined in the final determination of the U.S.
Department of Commerce in Grain-Oriented
Electrical Steel From Germany, Japan, and
Poland.4
1 Ball bearing steels are defined as steels which
contain, in addition to iron, each of the following
elements by weight in the amount specified: (i) Not
less than 0.95 nor more than 1.13 percent of carbon;
(ii) not less than 0.22 nor more than 0.48 percent
of manganese; (iii) none, or not more than 0.03
percent of sulfur; (iv) none, or not more than 0.03
percent of phosphorus; (v) not less than 0.18 nor
more than 0.37 percent of silicon; (vi) not less than
1.25 nor more than 1.65 percent of chromium; (vii)
none, or not more than 0.28 percent of nickel; (viii)
none, or not more than 0.38 percent of copper; and
(ix) none, or not more than 0.09 percent of
molybdenum.
2 Tool steels are defined as steels which contain
the following combinations of elements in the
quantity by weight respectively indicated: (i) More
than 1.2 percent carbon and more than 10.5 percent
chromium; or (ii) not less than 0.3 percent carbon
and 1.25 percent or more but less than 10.5 percent
chromium; or (iii) not less than 0.85 percent carbon
and 1 percent to 1.8 percent, inclusive, manganese;
or (iv) 0.9 percent to 1.2 percent, inclusive,
chromium and 0.9 percent to 1.4 percent, inclusive,
molybdenum; or (v) not less than 0.5 percent carbon
and not less than 3.5 percent molybdenum; or (vi)
not less than 0.5 percent carbon and not less than
5.5 percent tungsten.
3 Silico-manganese steel is defined as steels
containing by weight: (i) Not more than 0.7 percent
of carbon; (ii) 0.5 percent or more but not more than
1.9 percent of manganese, and (iii) 0.6 percent or
more but not more than 2.3 percent of silicon.
4 Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel From Germany,
Japan, and Poland: Final Determinations of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value and Certain Final Affirmative
Determination of Critical Circumstances, 79 FR
42,501, 42,503 (Dep’t of Commerce, July 22, 2014).
This determination defines grain-oriented electrical
steel as ‘‘a flat-rolled alloy steel product containing
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Aug 21, 2015
Jkt 235001
• Non-Oriented Electrical Steels (NOES),
as defined in the antidumping orders issued
by the U.S. Department of Commerce in NonOriented Electrical Steel From the People’s
Republic of China, Germany, Japan, the
Republic of Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan.5
The products subject to these
investigations are currently classified in the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (HTSUS) under item numbers:
7209.15.0000, 7209.16.0030, 7209.16.0060,
7209.16.0070, 7209.16.0091, 7209.17.0030,
7209.17.0060, 7209.17.0070, 7209.17.0091,
7209.18.1530, 7209.18.1560, 7209.18.2510,
7209.18.2520, 7209.18.2580, 7209.18.6020,
7209.18.6090, 7209.25.0000, 7209.26.0000,
7209.27.0000, 7209.28.0000, 7209.90.0000,
7210.70.3000, 7211.23.1500, 7211.23.2000,
7211.23.3000, 7211.23.4500, 7211.23.6030,
7211.23.6060, 7211.23.6075, 7211.23.6085,
7211.29.2030, 7211.29.2090, 7211.29.4500,
7211.29.6030, 7211.29.6080, 7211.90.0000,
7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7225.50.6000,
7225.50.8015, 7225.50.8085, 7225.99.0090,
7226.92.5000, 7226.92.7050, and
7226.92.8050. The products subject to the
investigations may also enter under the
following HTSUS numbers: 7210.90.9000,
7212.50.0000, 7215.10.0010, 7215.10.0080,
7215.50.0016, 7215.50.0018, 7215.50.0020,
7215.50.0061, 7215.50.0063, 7215.50.0065,
7215.50.0090, 7215.90.5000, 7217.10.1000,
7217.10.2000, 7217.10.3000, 7217.10.7000,
7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060,
7217.90.5090, 7225.19.0000, 7226.19.1000,
7226.19.9000, 7226.99.0180, 7228.50.5015,
7228.50.5040, 7228.50.5070, 7228.60.8000,
and 7229.90.1000.
The HTSUS subheadings above are
provided for convenience and U.S. Customs
purposes only. The written description of the
scope of the investigations is dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2015–20879 Filed 8–21–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
by weight at least 0.6 percent but not more than 6
percent of silicon, not more than 0.08 percent of
carbon, not more than 1.0 percent of aluminum, and
no other element in an amount that would give the
steel the characteristics of another alloy steel, in
coils or in straight lengths.’’
5 Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From the People’s
Republic of China, Germany, Japan, the Republic of
Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan: Antidumping Duty
Orders, 79 FR 71741, 71741–42 (Dep’t of
Commerce, Dec. 3, 2014). The orders define NOES
as ‘‘cold-rolled, flat-rolled, alloy steel products,
whether or not in coils, regardless of width, having
an actual thickness of 0.20 mm or more, in which
the core loss is substantially equal in any direction
of magnetization in the plane of the material. The
term ‘substantially equal’ means that the cross grain
direction of core loss is no more than 1.5 times the
straight grain direction (i.e., the rolling direction) of
core loss. NOES has a magnetic permeability that
does not exceed 1.65 Tesla when tested at a field
of 800 A/m (equivalent to 10 Oersteds) along (i.e.,
parallel to) the rolling direction of the sheet (i.e.,
B800 value). NOES contains by weight more than
1.00 percent of silicon but less than 3.5 percent of
silicon, not more than 0.08 percent of carbon, and
not more than 1.5 percent of aluminum. NOES has
a surface oxide coating, to which an insulation
coating may be applied.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
51211
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XE069
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to
Specified Activities; Taking Marine
Mammals Incidental to the Kodiak
Ferry Terminal and Dock
Improvements Project
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental
harassment authorization; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
NMFS has received a request
from the Alaska Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities
(DOT&PF) for authorization to take
marine mammals incidental to
reconstructing the existing ferry
terminal at Pier 1 in Kodiak, Alaska,
referred to as the Kodiak Ferry Terminal
and Dock Improvements project (State
Project Number 68938). The DOT&PF
requests that the incidental harassment
authorization (IHA) be valid for 1 year,
from September 30, 2015 through
September 29, 2016. Pursuant to the
Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments
on its proposal to issue an authorization
to the DOT&PF incidentally take, by
harassment, small numbers of marine
mammals for its reconstruction of the
ferry terminal at Pier 1 in Kodiak, AK.
DATES: Comments and information must
be received no later than September 23,
2015.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the
application should be addressed to Jolie
Harrison, Chief, Permits and
Conservation Division, Office of
Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service. Physical comments
should be sent to 1315 East-West
Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 and
electronic comments should be sent to
ITP.Pauline@noaa.gov.
Instructions: NMFS is not responsible
for comments sent by any other method,
to any other address or individual, or
received after the end of the comment
period. Comments received
electronically, including all
attachments, must not exceed a 25megabyte file size. Attachments to
electronic comments will be accepted in
Microsoft Word or Excel or Adobe PDF
file formats only. All comments
received are a part of the public record
and will generally be posted to the
Internet at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\24AUN1.SGM
24AUN1
51212
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Notices
pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm
without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address)
voluntarily submitted by the commenter
may be publicly accessible. Do not
submit confidential business
information or otherwise sensitive or
protected information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Pauline, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability
An electronic copy of the DOT&PFs
application and supporting documents,
as well as a list of the references cited
in this document, may be obtained by
visiting the Internet at: http://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
incidental/construction.htm. In case of
problems accessing these documents,
please call the contact listed above.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Background
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the
MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct
the Secretary of Commerce to allow,
upon request, the incidental, but not
intentional, taking of small numbers of
marine mammals by U.S. citizens who
engage in a specified activity (other than
commercial fishing) within a specified
geographical region if certain findings
are made and either regulations are
issued or, if the taking is limited to
harassment, a notice of a proposed
authorization is provided to the public
for review.
An authorization for incidental
takings shall be granted if NMFS finds
that the taking will have a negligible
impact on the species or stock(s), will
not have an unmitigable adverse impact
on the availability of the species or
stock(s) for subsistence uses (where
relevant), and if the permissible
methods of taking and requirements
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring
and reporting of such takings are set
forth. NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible
impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as ‘‘an
impact resulting from the specified
activity that cannot be reasonably
expected to, and is not reasonably likely
to, adversely affect the species or stock
through effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival.’’
Except with respect to certain
activities not pertinent here, the MMPA
defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: Any act of
pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i)
has the potential to injure a marine
mammal or marine mammal stock in the
wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has
the potential to disturb a marine
mammal or marine mammal stock in the
wild by causing disruption of behavioral
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Aug 21, 2015
Jkt 235001
patterns, including, but not limited to,
migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering [Level B
harassment].
Summary of Request
On March 27, 2015, NMFS received
an application from the DOT&PF for the
taking of marine mammal incidental to
reconstructing the existing ferry
terminal at Pier 1 in Kodiak, Alaska,
referred to as the Kodiak Ferry Terminal
and Dock Improvements project (State
Project Number 68938). On June 18,
2015 NMFS received a revised
application. NMFS determined that the
application was adequate and complete
on June 25, 2015. DOT&PF proposes to
conduct in-water work that may
incidentally harass marine mammals
(i.e., pile driving and removal). This
IHA would be valid from September 30,
2015 through September 29, 2016.
Proposed activities included as part of
the Kodiak Ferry Terminal and Dock
Improvements project (Pier 1 project)
with potential to affect marine mammals
include vibratory and impact piledriving operations and use of a downhole drill/hammer to install piles in
bedrock.
Species with the expected potential to
be present during the project timeframe
include killer whale (Orcinus orca),
Steller sea lion (Eumatopius jubatus),
harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena),
and harbor seal (Phoca vitulina
richardii).
Description of the Specified Activity
Overview
DOT&PF is seeking an IHA for work
that includes removal of the old timber
dock and piles and installation of the
new dock, including mooring and
fender systems. The existing decking,
piles, and other dock materials will be
removed. Temporary steel H-piles will
be installed to support temporary false
work structures (i.e., templates). The
new dock will be supported by steel
piles, and dock fenders will include
steel piles and timber piles. Note that
these estimates are the number of days
when each activity may occur at some
point during the day, and that the
number of days is not additive.
Dates and Duration
Pile installation and extraction
associated with the Pier 1 project will
begin no sooner than September 30,
2015 and will be completed no later
than September 29, 2016 (1 year
following IHA issuance). To minimize
impacts to pink salmon (Oncorhynchus
gorbuscha) fry and coho salmon (O.
kisutch) smolt, all in-water pile
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
extraction and installation is planned to
be completed by April 30, 2016. If work
cannot be completed by April 30, the
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
(ADF&G) recommended that the
DOT&PF refrain from impact pile
installation without a bubble curtain
from May 1 through June 30 within the
12-hour period beginning daily at the
start of civil dawn (Marie 2015). ADF&G
stated that this is the daily time period
when the majority of juvenile salmon
are moving through the project area, and
a 12-hour quiet period may protect
migrating juvenile salmon from
excessive noise (Frost 2015). Impact pile
installation would be acceptable
without a bubble curtain from May 1
through June 30 in the evenings,
beginning at 12 hours past civil dawn
(Marie 2015). At this time, DOT&PF
does not propose using bubble curtains.
However, it is possible that in-water
work may extend past April 30 in
compliance with the mitigation for
salmon as recommended by ADF&G.
Removal of existing timber piles,
installation of temporary piles and new
permanent piles, and removal of
temporary piles are expected to occur
over approximately 120 working days
over a period of 4 to 6 months. This IHA
requests authorization for up to 1 year
of construction activities in case
unforeseen construction delays occur.
Pile extraction, pile driving, and drilling
will occur intermittently over the work
period, for anything from minutes to
hours at a time (Table 1–1 in the
application). The proposed Pier 1
project will require an estimated 120
days total of pile extraction and
installation, including 80 days of
vibratory extraction and installation, 60
days of down-hole drilling, and 22 days
of impact hammering. Note that these
days are not additive. Timing will vary
based on the weather, delays, substrate
type (the rock is layered and is of
varying hardness across the site, so
some holes will be drilled quickly and
others may take longer), and other
factors. A production rate of two
permanent piles per day, on days when
pile installation occurs, is considered
typical for a project of this type.
A 25 percent contingency has been
added to the estimate of pile extraction
and driving time to account for
unknown substrate conditions (See
Table 1–1 in the application). Therefore,
the project may require approximately
614 hours of pile extraction or driving.
The days for pile driving and extraction
will not always be successive, but will
be staggered over a 4- to 6-month
period, depending on weather,
construction and mechanical delays,
marine mammal shutdowns, and other
E:\FR\FM\24AUN1.SGM
24AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Notices
potential delays and logistical
constraints. The number of hours of pile
driving within any single day will vary.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Specified Geographic Region
The Kodiak Ferry Terminal and Dock
at Pier 1 is located in the City of Kodiak,
Alaska, at 57°47′12.78″ N, 152°24′09.73″
W, on the northeastern corner of Kodiak
Island, in the Gulf of Alaska (See Figure
1–1 in the Application). Pier 1 is an
active ferry terminal and multi-use dock
located in Near Island Channel, which
separates downtown Kodiak from Near
Island (Figure 1–2). The channel is
approximately 200 meters (656 feet)
wide in the project area. Pier 1 is
situated between a marine fuel service
floating dock to the northeast (Petro
Marine Services) and a pile-supported
dock owned by a shore-based seafood
processor to the southwest. Pier 1 is
separated from the seafood processing
plant dock by only about 15 meters (50
feet; Figure 1–3).
Detailed Description of Activities
The proposed action for this IHA
request includes removal of the old
timber dock and piles and installation of
the new dock, including mooring and
fender systems. The existing decking,
piles, and other dock materials will be
removed. Temporary steel H-piles will
be installed to support temporary false
work structures (i.e., templates). The
new dock will be supported by steel
piles, and dock fenders will include
steel piles and timber piles. The
proposed Pier 1 project will require an
estimated 120 days total of pile
extraction and installation, including 80
days of vibratory extraction and
installation, 60 days of down-hole
drilling, and 22 days of impact
hammering. Note that these estimates
are the number of days when each
activity may occur at some point during
the day, and that the number of days is
not additive. The total hours of pile
installation for each activity is estimated
in more detail later in this section.
The existing dock consists of
approximately 156 vertical, 13-inchdiameter creosote-treated timber piles,
40 timber battered piles, and 14 16-inchdiameter steel fender piles. All piles,
decking, and other existing dock
materials will be removed. The exact
method for pile extraction will be
determined by the contractor. It is
anticipated that when possible, existing
piles will be extracted by directly lifting
them with a crane. A vibratory hammer
will be used only if necessary to extract
piles that cannot be directly lifted.
Removal of each old pile is estimated to
require 5 minutes of vibratory hammer
use. Under the worst-case scenario, if all
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Aug 21, 2015
Jkt 235001
old piles were removed by using the
vibratory hammer, it would require a
total time of about 17.5 hours (See Table
1–1 in the application). If the piles break
below the waterline, the pile stubs will
be removed with a clamshell bucket.
The exact means and method for pile
installation will be determined by the
contractor; however, a few options are
available within a general framework.
Temporary steel pipe or H-piles will be
installed as part of a template to ensure
proper placement and alignment during
driving of the permanent steel piles.
Temporary piles will be driven with a
vibratory hammer 10–30 feet through
the overburden sediment layer but are
not expected to penetrate into the
bedrock. A vibratory hammer will be
used to remove the temporary piles,
which will then be reinstalled at a new
location. Individual temporary piles
will be driven and removed an
estimated 88 times. It is estimated that
it will take 10 minutes of vibratory pile
driving per temporary pile for
installation and 5 minutes each for
extraction, for a total of 15 minutes of
vibratory pile driving per temporary
pile. For 88 temporary piles, this is an
estimated 22 hours of total time using
active vibratory equipment.
The new terminal and dock will be
supported by approximately 88 round,
24-inch-diameter steel piles. The 24inch steel piles will be driven 10–30 feet
through the sediment layer and 15 feet
into the bedrock. Dock fenders will be
supported atop 10 round, 18-inchdiameter steel piles. In addition, eight
round, 16-inch timber piles, which are
somewhat variable in size from about 16
inches at the butt (top) to about 12
inches at the tip (bottom), will be
installed as fender piles along the north
side of the dock. Both the steel and
timber fender piles will be driven with
a vibratory hammer approximately 22
feet embedment, or to refusal.
The sequence for installing the
permanent 24-inch piles begins with
insertion through overlying sediment
with a vibratory hammer for about 10
minutes per pile. A hole will then be
drilled in the underlying bedrock by
using a down-hole drill/hammer. A
down-hole hammer is a drill bit that
drills through the sediment and a pulse
mechanism that functions at the bottom
of the hole, using a pulsing bit to break
up the harder materials or rock to allow
removal of the fragments and insertion
of the pile. The head extends so that the
drilling takes place below the pile. Drill
cuttings are expelled from the top of the
pile as dust or mud. It is estimated that
drilling piles through the layered
bedrock will take about 5 hours per pile.
Then, about five blows of an impact
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
51213
hammer will be used to confirm that
piles are set into bedrock (proofed), for
a maximum time expected of 1 minute
of impact hammering per pile. When the
impact hammer is employed for
proofing, a pile cap or cushion will be
placed between the impact hammer and
the pile.
All permanent 18-inch steel piles and
timber piles will be driven into the
marine sediment by using a vibratory
hammer. It is anticipated to take about
10 minutes of vibratory driving to install
each permanent 18-inch steel and
timber pile.
Table 1–1 in the application
illustrates that the project will require
an estimated 60 hours of vibratory
hammer time, 440 hours of down-hole
drilling time, and 2 hours of impact
hammer time. DOT&PF has
conservatively added a contingency of
25% to the total hours required
resulting in 75 hours of vibratory
hammer time, 550 hours of down-hole
drilling time, and 3 hours of impact
hammer time.
Description of Marine Mammals in the
Area of the Specified Activity
Marine waters near Kodiak Island
support many species of marine
mammals, including pinnipeds and
cetaceans; however, the number of
species regularly occurring near the
project area is limited. Steller sea lions
are the most common marine mammals
in the project area and are part of the
western Distinct Population Segment
(wDPS) that is listed as Endangered
under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA). Harbor seals (Phoca vitulina),
harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena),
and killer whales (Orcinus orca) may
also occur in the project area, but far
less frequently and in lower abundance
than Steller sea lions. Humpback whales
(Megaptera novaeangliae), fin whales
(Balaenoptera physalus), and gray
whales (Eschrichtius robustus) occur in
the nearshore waters around Kodiak
Island), but are not expected to be found
near the project area because of the
narrow channel and boat traffic. Dall’s
porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli) generally
inhabit more offshore habitats than the
Near Island channel. The relatively large
numbers of Steller sea lions in the area
may serve as an additional deterrent for
some marine mammals. This IHA
application is limited to the species
shown in Table 1 and will assess
potential impacts to Steller sea lions,
harbor seals, harbor porpoises, and
killer whales.
In the species accounts provided here,
we offer a brief introduction to the
species and relevant stock as well as
available information regarding
E:\FR\FM\24AUN1.SGM
24AUN1
51214
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Notices
population trends and threats, and
describe any information regarding local
occurrence.
TABLE 1—MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES POTENTIALLY PRESENT IN THE PROJECT AREA
Stock(s)
abundance
estimate 1
Species
Killer Whale (Orcinus orca) Eastern N. Pacific, Alaska
Resident Stock.
Killer Whale (Orcinus orca) Eastern N. Pacific, Gulf of
Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Seat Transient
Stock.
Harbor Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) Gulf of Alaska
Stock.
Steller Sea Lion (Eumetopias jubatus) wDPS Stock .......
Harbor Seal (Phoca vitulina richardii) South Kodiak
Stock.
Frequency of
occurrence
ESA * Status
MMPA ** Status
2,347
...........................
Non-depleted ..........................
Occasional.
587
...........................
Non-depleted ..........................
Occasional.
31,046
...........................
Non-depleted and Strategic ....
Occasional.
52,200
11,117
Endangered ......
...........................
Depleted and Strategic ...........
Non-depleted ..........................
Common.
Occasional.
1 NOAA/NMFS 2014 marine mammal stock assessment reports at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/species.htm.
* ESA = Endangered Species Act.
** MMPA = Marine Mammal Protection Act.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Cetaceans
Killer Whale
Killer whales have been observed in
all oceans and seas of the world, but the
highest densities occur in colder and
more productive waters found at high
latitudes (NOAA 2015). Killer whales
are found throughout the North Pacific,
and occur along the entire Alaska coast,
in British Columbia and Washington
inland waterways, and along the outer
coasts of Washington, Oregon, and
California (NOAA 2015).
Based on data regarding association
patterns, acoustics, movements, and
genetic differences, eight killer whale
stocks are now recognized within the
Pacific U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone,
seven of which occur in Alaska: (1) The
Alaska Resident stock; (2) the Northern
Resident stock; (3) the Southern
Resident stock; (4) the Gulf of Alaska,
Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea
Transient stock; (5) the AT1 Transient
stock; (6) the West Coast transient stock,
occurring from California through
southeastern Alaska; and (7) the
Offshore stock. Only the Alaska
Resident stock and the Gulf of Alaska,
Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea
Transient stock are considered in this
application because other stocks occur
outside the geographic area under
consideration.
The Alaska Resident stock occurs
from southeastern Alaska to the
Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea.
Although the Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian
Islands, and Bering Sea Transient stock
occupies a range that includes all of the
U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone in
Alaska, few individuals have been seen
in southeastern Alaska. The transient
stock occurs primarily from Prince
William Sound through the Aleutian
Islands and Bering Sea.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Aug 21, 2015
Jkt 235001
The Alaska Resident stock of killer
whales is currently estimated at 2,347
individuals, and the estimate of the Gulf
of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Bering
Sea Transient stock is 587 individuals
(Allen and Angliss 2013). The Gulf of
Alaska component of the transient stock
is estimated to include 136 of the 587
individuals. The abundance estimate for
the Alaska Resident stock is likely
underestimated because researchers
continue to encounter new whales in
the Gulf of Alaska and western Alaskan
waters. At present, reliable data on
trends in population abundance for both
stocks are unavailable.
Transient killer whales are seen
periodically in waters of Kodiak Harbor,
with photo-documentation since at least
1993 (Kodiak Seafood and Marine
Science Center 2015). One pod known
to visit Kodiak Harbor includes an adult
female and adult male that have
distinctive dorsal fins that make
repeated recognition possible. This, as
well as their easy visibility from shore,
has led to their ‘‘popularity’’ in Kodiak,
where their presence is often announced
on public radio. They have been
repeatedly observed and photographed
attacking Steller sea lions.
The Kodiak killer whales appear to
specialize in preying on Steller sea lions
commonly found near Kodiak’s
processing plants, fishing vessels, and
docks. This pod kills and consumes at
least four to six Steller sea lions per year
from the Kodiak harbor area, primarily
from February through May (Kodiak
Seafood and Marine Science Center
2015, Wynne 2015b). Further
information on the biology and local
distribution of these species can be
found in the DOT&PF application
available online at: http://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
incidental/construction.htm and the
NMFS Marine Mammal Stock
Assessment Reports, which may be
found at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/
species/.
Harbor Porpoise
The harbor porpoise inhabits
temporal, subarctic, and arctic waters.
In the eastern North Pacific, harbor
porpoises range from Point Barrow,
Alaska, to Point Conception, California.
Harbor porpoise primarily frequent
coastal waters and occur most
frequently in waters less than 100 m
deep (Hobbs and Waite 2010). They may
occasionally be found in deeper offshore
waters.
In Alaska, harbor porpoises are
currently divided into three stocks,
based primarily on geography. These are
the Bering Sea stock, the Southeast
Alaska stock, and the Gulf of Alaska
stock. (Allen and Angliss 2014). Only
the Gulf of Alaska stock is considered in
this application because the other stocks
are not found in the geographic area
under consideration.
Harbor porpoises are neither
designated as depleted under the
MMPA nor listed as threatened or
endangered under the ESA. Because the
most recent abundance estimate is 14
years old and information on incidental
harbor porpoise mortality in commercial
fisheries is not well understood, the
Gulf of Alaska stock of harbor porpoise
is classified as strategic. Population
trends and status of this stock relative
to optimum sustainable population size
are currently unknown. The Gulf of
Alaska stock is currently estimated at
31,046 individuals (Allen and Angliss
2013). No reliable information is
available to determine trends in
abundance.
E:\FR\FM\24AUN1.SGM
24AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Notices
According to the online database,
Ocean Biogeographic Information
System, Spatial Ecological Analysis of
Megavertebrate Populations (Halpin
2009 at OBIS–SEAMAP 2015), West
Coast populations have more restricted
movements and do not migrate as much
as East Coast populations. Most harbor
porpoise groups are small, generally
consisting of less than five or six
individuals, though for feeding or
migration they may aggregate into large,
loose groups of 50 to several hundred
animals.
Harbor porpoises commonly frequent
Kodiak’s nearshore waters, but are
rarely if ever noted in the Kodiak
channel (K. Wynne, pers. comm.).
Harbor porpoises are expected to be
encountered rarely in the project area,
although no data exist to quantify
harbor porpoise attendance.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Pinnipeds
Steller Sea Lion
The Steller sea lion is a pinniped and
the largest of the eared seals. Steller sea
lion populations that primarily occur
west of 144° W (Cape Suckling, Alaska)
comprise the western Distinct
Population Segment (wDPS). Only the
wDPS is considered in this application
because the eastern DPS (eDPS) occurs
outside the geographic area under
consideration. Steller sea lions were
listed as threatened range-wide under
the ESA on November 26, 1990 (55 FR
49204). Steller sea lions were
subsequently partitioned into the
western and eastern DPSs in 1997
(Allen and Angliss 2010), with the
wDPS being listed as endangered under
the ESA and the eDPS remaining
classified as threatened (62 FR 24345)
until it was delisted in November 2013.
On August 27, 1993, NMFS published
a final rule designating critical habitat
for the Steller sea lion as a 20 nautical
mile buffer around all major haul-outs
and rookeries, as well as associated
terrestrial, air and aquatic zones, and
three large offshore foraging areas (50
CFR 226.202)
The range of the Steller sea lion
includes the North Pacific Ocean rim
from California to northern Japan.
Steller sea lions forage in nearshore and
pelagic waters where they are
opportunistic predators. They feed
primarily on a wide variety of fishes and
cephalopods. Steller sea lions use
terrestrial haulout sites to rest and take
refuge. They also gather on welldefined, traditionally used rookeries to
pup and breed. These habitats are
typically gravel, rocky, or sand beaches;
ledges; or rocky reefs (Allen and
Angliss, 2013).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Aug 21, 2015
Jkt 235001
Steller sea lions have a worldwide
population estimated at 120,000 to
140,000 animals, with approximately
93,000 in Alaska. The most recent
comprehensive estimate (pups and nonpups) for abundance of the wDPS in
Alaska is 52,209 sea lions, based on
aerial surveys of non-pups conducted in
June and July 2008–2011 and aerial and
ground-based pup counts conducted in
June and July 2009–2011 (Allen and
Angliss 2014).
The wDPS of Steller sea lions
declined approximately 75 percent from
1976 to 1990. Factors that may have
contributed to this decline include (1)
incidental take in fisheries, (2) legal and
illegal shooting, (3) predation, (4)
contaminants, (5) disease, and (6)
climate change. Non-pup Steller sea lion
counts at trend sites in the wDPS
increased 11 percent during 2000–2004.
These counts were the first region-wide
increases for the wDPS since
standardized surveys began in the
1970s, and were due to increased or
stable counts in all regions except the
western Aleutian Islands. During 2004–
2008, western Alaska non-pup counts
increased only 3 percent; eastern Gulf of
Alaska (Prince William Sound area)
counts were higher; counts from the
Kenai Peninsula through Kiska Island,
including Kodiak Island, were stable;
and western Aleutian counts continued
to decline (Allen and Angliss 2010).
Steller sea lions are the most obvious
and abundant marine mammals in the
project area. The major natural Steller
sea lion haulouts closest to the project
area are located on Long Island and
Cape Chiniak, which are approximately
4.6 nautical miles (8.5 kilometers) and
13.8 nautical miles (25.6 kilometers)
away from the project site, respectively.
Annual counts averaged 33 animals on
Long Island from 2008 through 2010,
and 119 animals at Cape Chiniak during
the same time period (Table 4–1). The
closest rookery is located on Marmot
Island, approximately 30 nautical miles
(55.5 kilometers) from the project site,
which had average annual counts of 656
animals from 2008 through 2010 (as
cited in NMFS 2013).
Many individual sea lions have
become habituated to human activity in
the Kodiak harbor area and utilize a
man-made haulout float called Dog Bay
float located in St. Herman Harbor,
about 1,300 meters (4,300 feet) from the
project site (See Figure 1–2; Figure 3–1
in the application). This is not a
federally recognized haulout and is not
considered part of sea lion critical
habitat. Critical habitat is associated
with breeding and haulout areas in
Alaska, California, and Oregon (NMFS
1993). Steller sea lion critical habitat is
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
51215
defined by a 20-nautical-mile (37-km)
radius (straight line distance) encircling
a major haulout or rookery. The project
area occurs within critical habitat for
two major haulouts, Long Island and
Cape Chiniak, described above. A
section from an old floating breakwater,
the float was relocated to Dog Bay in the
year 2000 and intended to serve as a
dedicated sea lion haulout. It serves its
purpose of reducing sea lion-human
conflicts in Kodiak’s docks and harbors
by providing an undisturbed haulout
location and reducing the numbers of
sea lions that haul out on vessel
moorage floats.
Counts of sea lions hauled out on the
Dog Bay float provide an index of the
number of Steller sea lions in the harbor
area. Because this float is not considered
an official haulout by NMFS, few
standardized surveys to count sea lions
have been conducted (Wynne 2015a).
Surveys from 2004 through 2006
indicated peak winter (October–April)
counts ranging from 27 to 33 animals
(Wynn et al. 2011). Counts from
February 2015 during a site visit by
HDR biologists ranged from
approximately 28 to 45 sea lions on the
float. More than 100 sea lions were
counted on the Dog Bay float at times in
spring 2015, although the mean number
was much smaller (Wynne 2015b).
Abundant and predictable sources of
food for sea lions in the Kodiak area
include fishing gear, fishing boats and
tenders, and the many seafood
processing facilities that accept transfers
of fish from offloading vessels. Sea lions
have become accustomed to depredating
fishing gear and raiding fishing vessels
during fishing and offloading and they
follow potential sources of food around
the harbors and docks, waiting for
opportunities to feed. When vessels are
offloading fish at the docks of
processing facilities, the sea lions rear
out of the water to look over the gunnels
for fish on the deck; if the vessel is a
stern trawler, they charge up the stern
ramp or codend to gain access to the
deck (Speckman 2015; Ward 2015;
Wynne 2015a). Sea lions have killed
dogs and have dragged humans into the
water (Wynne 2015a).
The number of sea lions in the
immediate project area varies depending
on the season and presence of
commercial fishing vessels unloading
their catch at the seafood processing
plant dock immediately adjacent to Pier
1. During the February 2015 site visit by
HDR biologists, from zero up to about 25
sea lions were seen at one time in the
Pier 1 project area. About 22 of those sea
lions were subadults that were clearly
foraging on schooling fishes in the area
and were not interacting with the
E:\FR\FM\24AUN1.SGM
24AUN1
51216
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Notices
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
fishing vessels offloading at the seafood
processing plant at the time. The stern
trawler offloading at the processing
plant dock during this period was
attended by three mature bull sea lions,
which constantly swam back and forth
behind the stern watching for an
opportunity to gain access.
At least four other seafood processing
facilities are present in Kodiak and
operate concurrently with the one
located next to Pier 1. All are visited by
sea lions looking for food, and all are
successfully raided by sea lions with
regularity (Wynne 2015a). Sea lions also
follow and raid fishing vessels. The
seafood processing facility adjacent to
the Pier 1 project site is therefore not the
only source of food for Kodiak sea lions
that inhabit the harbor area.
Furthermore, sea lions in a more
‘‘natural’’ situation do not generally eat
every day, but tend to forage every 1–
2 days and return to haulouts to rest
between foraging trips (Merrick and
Loughlin 1997; Rehburg et al. 2009).
The foraging habits of sea lions using
the Dog Bay float and Kodiak harbor
area are not documented, but it is
reasonable to assume that, given the
abundance of readily available food, not
every sea lion in the area visits the
seafood processing plant adjacent to
Pier 1 every day. Based on numbers at
the Dog Bay float and sea lion behavior,
it is estimated that about 40 unique
individual sea lions likely pass by the
project site each day (Speckman 2015;
Ward 2015; Wynne 2015a). Sea lions in
the Kodiak harbor area are habituated to
fishing vessels and are skilled at gaining
access to fish. It is likely that some of
the same animals follow local vessels to
the nearby fishing grounds and back to
town. It is also likely that hearingimpaired or deaf sea lions are among the
sea lions that attend the seafood
processing facility adjacent to the Pier 1
construction site. It is not known how
a hearing-impaired or deaf sea lion
would respond to typical mitigation
efforts at a construction site such as
ramping up of pile-driving equipment. It
is also unknown whether a hearingimpaired or deaf sea lion would avoid
pile-driving activity, or whether such an
animal might approach closely, even
within the Level A harassment zone,
without responding to or being
impacted by the noise level.
Harbor Seal
Harbor seals range from Baja
California north along the west coasts of
Washington, Oregon, California, British
Columbia, and Southeast Alaska; west
through the Gulf of Alaska, Prince
William Sound, and the Aleutian
Islands; and north in the Bering Sea to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Aug 21, 2015
Jkt 235001
Cape Newenham and the Pribilof
Islands. Distribution of the South
Kodiak stock extends from East Cape
(northeast coast of Kodiak Island) south
to South Cape (Chirikof Island),
including Tugidak Island, and up the
southwest coast of Kodiak Island to
Middle Cape.
In 2010, harbor seals in Alaska were
partitioned into 12 separate stocks based
largely on genetic structure (Allen and
Angliss 2010). Only the South Kodiak
stock is considered in this application
because other stocks occur outside the
geographic area under consideration.
The current statewide abundance
estimate for Alaskan harbor seals is
152,602, based on aerial survey data
collected during 1998–2007. The
abundance estimate for the South
Kodiak stock is 11,117 (Allen and
Angliss 2010). Harbor seals have
declined dramatically in some parts of
their range over the past few decades,
while in other parts their numbers have
increased or remained stable over
similar time periods.
A significant portion of the harbor
seal population within the South
Kodiak stock is located at and around
Tugidak Island off the southwest of
Kodiak Island. Sharp declines in the
number of seals present on Tugidak
were observed between 1976 and 1998.
Although the number of seals on
Tugidak Island has stabilized and shows
some evidence of increase since the
decline, the population in 2000
remained reduced by 80 percent
compared to the levels in the 1970s
(Jemison et al. 2006). The current
population trend for this stock is
unknown.
Harbor seals haul out on rocks, reefs,
beaches, and drifting glacial ice (Allen
and Angliss 2014). They are nonmigratory; their local movements are
associated with tides, weather, season,
food availability, and reproduction, as
well as sex and age class (Allen and
Angliss 2014; Boveng et al. 2012; Lowry
et al. 2001; Swain et al. 1996).
Although the number of harbor seals
on eastern Kodiak haulouts has been
increasing steadily since the early 1990s
(Kodiak Seafood and Marine Science
Center 2015), sightings are rare in the
project area. Several harbor seals tagged
at Uganik Bay (Northwest Kodiak
Island) dispersed as far north as
Anchorage and as far south as Chignik,
but none were found near Kodiak
(Kodiak Seafood and Marine Science
Center 2015). Harbor seals are expected
to be encountered occasionally in the
project area, although no data exist to
quantify harbor seal attendance.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Potential Effects of the Specified
Activity on Marine Mammals and Their
Habitat
This section includes a summary and
discussion of the ways that stressors,
(e.g. pile driving,) and potential
mitigation activities, associated with the
reconstruction of the Pier 1 Kodiak
Ferry Terminal and Dock may impact
marine mammals and their habitat. The
Estimated Take by Incidental
Harassment section later in this
document will include an analysis of
the number of individuals that are
expected to be taken by this activity.
The Negligible Impact Analysis section
will include the analysis of how this
specific activity will impact marine
mammals and will consider the content
of this section, the Estimated Take by
Incidental Harassment section, and the
Proposed Mitigation section to draw
conclusions regarding the likely impacts
of this activity on the reproductive
success or survivorship of individuals
and from that on the affected marine
mammal populations or stocks. In the
following discussion, we provide
general background information on
sound and marine mammal hearing
before considering potential effects to
marine mammals from sound produced
by pile extraction, vibratory pile
driving, impact pile driving and downhole drilling.
Description of Sound Sources
Sound travels in waves, the basic
components of which are frequency,
wavelength, velocity, and amplitude.
Frequency is the number of pressure
waves that pass by a reference point per
unit of time and is measured in hertz
(Hz) or cycles per second. Wavelength is
the distance between two peaks of a
sound wave; lower frequency sounds
have longer wavelengths than higher
frequency sounds and attenuate
(decrease) more rapidly in shallower
water. Amplitude is the height of the
sound pressure wave or the ‘loudness’
of a sound and is typically measured
using the decibel (dB) scale. A dB is the
ratio between a measured pressure (with
sound) and a reference pressure (sound
at a constant pressure, established by
scientific standards). It is a logarithmic
unit that accounts for large variations in
amplitude; therefore, relatively small
changes in dB ratings correspond to
large changes in sound pressure. When
referring to sound pressure levels (SPLs;
the sound force per unit area), sound is
referenced in the context of underwater
sound pressure to 1 microPascal (mPa).
One pascal is the pressure resulting
from a force of one newton exerted over
an area of one square meter. The source
E:\FR\FM\24AUN1.SGM
24AUN1
51217
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Notices
level (SL) represents the sound level at
a distance of 1 m from the source
(referenced to 1 mPa). The received level
is the sound level at the listener’s
position. Note that all underwater sound
levels in this document are referenced
to a pressure of 1 mPa and all airborne
sound levels in this document are
referenced to a pressure of 20 mPa.
Root mean square (rms) is the
quadratic mean sound pressure over the
duration of an impulse. Rms is
calculated by squaring all of the sound
amplitudes, averaging the squares, and
then taking the square root of the
average (Urick, 1983). Rms accounts for
both positive and negative values;
squaring the pressures makes all values
positive so that they may be accounted
for in the summation of pressure levels
(Hastings and Popper, 2005). This
measurement is often used in the
context of discussing behavioral effects,
in part because behavioral effects,
which often result from auditory cues,
may be better expressed through
averaged units than by peak pressures.
When underwater objects vibrate or
activity occurs, sound-pressure waves
are created. These waves alternately
compress and decompress the water as
the sound wave travels. Underwater
sound waves radiate in all directions
away from the source (similar to ripples
on the surface of a pond), except in
cases where the source is directional.
The compressions and decompressions
associated with sound waves are
detected as changes in pressure by
aquatic life and man-made sound
receptors such as hydrophones.
Even in the absence of sound from the
specified activity, the underwater
environment is typically loud due to
ambient sound. Ambient sound is
defined as environmental background
sound levels lacking a single source or
point (Richardson et al., 1995), and the
sound level of a region is defined by the
total acoustical energy being generated
by known and unknown sources. These
sources may include physical (e.g.,
waves, earthquakes, ice, atmospheric
sound), biological (e.g., sounds
produced by marine mammals, fish, and
invertebrates), and anthropogenic sound
(e.g., vessels, dredging, aircraft,
construction). A number of sources
contribute to ambient sound, including
the following (Richardson et al., 1995):
• Wind and waves: The complex
interactions between wind and water
surface, including processes such as
breaking waves and wave-induced
bubble oscillations and cavitation, are a
main source of naturally occurring
ambient noise for frequencies between
200 Hz and 50 kHz (Mitson, 1995). In
general, ambient sound levels tend to
increase with increasing wind speed
and wave height. Surf noise becomes
important near shore, with
measurements collected at a distance of
8.5 km from shore showing an increase
of 10 dB in the 100 to 700 Hz band
during heavy surf conditions.
• Precipitation: Sound from rain and
hail impacting the water surface can
become an important component of total
noise at frequencies above 500 Hz, and
possibly down to 100 Hz during quiet
times.
• Biological: Marine mammals can
contribute significantly to ambient noise
levels, as can some fish and shrimp. The
frequency band for biological
contributions is from approximately 12
Hz to over 100 kHz.
• Anthropogenic: Sources of ambient
noise related to human activity include
transportation (surface vessels and
aircraft), dredging and construction, oil
and gas drilling and production, seismic
surveys, sonar, explosions, and ocean
acoustic studies. Shipping noise
typically dominates the total ambient
noise for frequencies between 20 and
300 Hz. In general, the frequencies of
anthropogenic sounds are below 1 kHz
and, if higher frequency sound levels
are created, they attenuate rapidly
(Richardson et al., 1995). Sound from
identifiable anthropogenic sources other
than the activity of interest (e.g., a
passing vessel) is sometimes termed
background sound, as opposed to
ambient sound. Representative levels of
anthropogenic sound are displayed in
Table 2.
The sum of the various natural and
anthropogenic sound sources at any
given location and time—which
comprise ‘‘ambient’’ or ‘‘background’’
sound—depends not only on the source
levels (as determined by current
weather conditions and levels of
biological and shipping activity) but
also on the ability of sound to propagate
through the environment. In turn, sound
propagation is dependent on the
spatially and temporally varying
properties of the water column and sea
floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a
result of the dependence on a large
number of varying factors, ambient
sound levels can be expected to vary
widely over both coarse and fine spatial
and temporal scales. Sound levels at a
given frequency and location can vary
by 10–20 dB from day to day
(Richardson et al., 1995). The result is
that, depending on the source type and
its intensity, sound from the specified
activity may be a negligible addition to
the local environment or could form a
distinctive signal that may affect marine
mammals.
TABLE 2—REPRESENTATIVE SOUND LEVELS OF ANTHROPOGENIC SOURCES
Frequency
range
(Hz)
Sound source
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Small vessels .......................................................................
Tug docking gravel barge ....................................................
Vibratory driving of 72-in steel pipe pile ..............................
Impact driving of 36-in steel pipe pile ..................................
Impact driving of 66-in cast-in-steel-shell (CISS) pile .........
The Pier 1 project area is frequented
by fishing vessels and tenders; ferries,
barges, tugboats; and other commercial
and recreational vessels that use the
channel to access harbors and city
docks, fuel docks, processing plants
where fish catches are offloaded, and
other commercial facilities. At the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Aug 21, 2015
Jkt 235001
Underwater sound level
250–1,000
200–1,000
10–1,500
10–1,500
10–1,500
151
149
180
195
195
dB
dB
dB
dB
dB
rms
rms
rms
rms
rms
at
at
at
at
at
1 m .........................
100 m .....................
10 m .......................
10 m .......................
10 m .......................
seafood processing plant, to the
southwest of Pier 1, fish are offloaded
by vacuum hose straight into the
processing plant from the vessels’ holds,
and vessels raft up three and four deep
to the dock during peak fishing seasons.
On the northeast side of Pier 1 is the
Petro Marine fuel dock, which services
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Reference
Richardson et al., 1995.
Blackwell and Greene, 2002.
Reyff, 2007.
Laughlin, 2007.
Reviewed in Hastings and
Popper, 2005.
a range of vessel sizes, including larger
vessels that can be accommodated by
docking at Pier 1. Two boat harbors
exist in Near Island Channel, which
house a number of commercial and
recreational marine vessels. The
channel is also a primary route for local
E:\FR\FM\24AUN1.SGM
24AUN1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
51218
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Notices
vessel traffic to access waters outside
the Gulf of Alaska.
High levels of vessel traffic are known
to elevate background levels of noise in
the marine environment. For example,
continuous sounds for tugs pulling
barges have been reported to range from
145 to 166 dB re 1 mPa rms at 1 meter
from the source (Miles et al. 1987;
Richardson et al. 1995; Simmonds et al.
2004. Ambient underwater noise levels
in the Pier 1 project area are both
variable and relatively high, and are
expected to mask some sounds of
drilling, pile installation, and pile
extraction.
In-water construction activities
associated with the project include
vibratory pile driving and removal,
down-hole drilling, and impact pile
driving. There are two general categories
of sound types: Impulse and non-pulse
(defined in the following). Vibratory
pile driving is considered to be
continuous or non-pulsed while impact
pile driving is considered to be an
impulse or pulsed sound type. The
distinction between these two sound
types is important because they have
differing potential to cause physical
effects, particularly with regard to
hearing (e.g., Ward, 1997 in Southall et
al., 2007). Please see Southall et al.,
(2007) for an in-depth discussion of
these concepts. Note that information
related to impact hammers is included
here for comparison. Pulsed sound
sources (e.g., explosions, gunshots,
sonic booms, impact pile driving)
produce signals that are brief (typically
considered to be less than one second),
broadband, atonal transients (ANSI,
1986; Harris, 1998; NIOSH, 1998; ISO,
2003; ANSI, 2005) and occur either as
isolated events or repeated in some
succession. Pulsed sounds are all
characterized by a relatively rapid rise
from ambient pressure to a maximal
pressure value followed by a rapid
decay period that may include a period
of diminishing, oscillating maximal and
minimal pressures, and generally have
an increased capacity to induce physical
injury as compared with sounds that
lack these features.
Non-pulsed sounds can be tonal,
narrowband, or broadband, brief or
prolonged, and may be either
continuous or non-continuous (ANSI,
1995; NIOSH, 1998). Some of these nonpulsed sounds can be transient signals
of short duration but without the
essential properties of pulses (e.g., rapid
rise time). Examples of non-pulsed
sounds include those produced by
vessels, aircraft, machinery operations
such as drilling or dredging, vibratory
pile driving, and active sonar systems
(such as those used by the U.S. Navy).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Aug 21, 2015
Jkt 235001
The duration of such sounds, as
received at a distance, can be greatly
extended in a highly reverberant
environment.
The likely or possible impacts of the
proposed pile driving program at Pier 1
on marine mammals could involve both
non-acoustic and acoustic stressors.
Potential non-acoustic stressors could
result from the physical presence of the
equipment and personnel. Any impacts
to marine mammals are expected to
primarily be acoustic in nature.
Acoustic stressors could include effects
of heavy equipment operation, pile
installation and pile removal at Pier 1.
Marine Mammal Hearing
When considering the influence of
various kinds of sound on the marine
environment, it is necessary to
understand that different kinds of
marine life are sensitive to different
frequencies of sound. Based on available
behavioral data, audiograms have been
derived using auditory evoked
potentials, anatomical modeling, and
other data, Southall et al. (2007)
designate ‘‘functional hearing groups’’
for marine mammals and estimate the
lower and upper frequencies of
functional hearing of the groups. The
functional groups and the associated
frequencies are indicated below (though
animals are less sensitive to sounds at
the outer edge of their functional range
and most sensitive to sounds of
frequencies within a smaller range
somewhere in the middle of their
functional hearing range):
• Low frequency cetaceans (13
species of mysticetes): functional
hearing is estimated to occur between
approximately 7 Hz and 30 kHz;
• Mid-frequency cetaceans (32
species of dolphins, six species of larger
toothed whales, and 19 species of
beaked and bottlenose whales):
functional hearing is estimated to occur
between approximately 150 Hz and 160
kHz;
• High frequency cetaceans (eight
species of true porpoises, six species of
river dolphins, Kogia, the franciscana,
and four species of cephalorhynchids):
functional hearing is estimated to occur
between approximately 200 Hz and 180
kHz;
• Phocid pinnipeds in Water:
functional hearing is estimated to occur
between approximately 75 Hz and 75
kHz; and
• Otariid pinnipeds in Water:
functional hearing is estimated to occur
between approximately 100 Hz and 40
kHz.
As mentioned previously in this
document, nine marine mammal species
(seven cetacean and two pinniped) may
occur in the project area. Of the two
species likely to occur in the proposed
project area, one is classified as a midfrequency cetacean (i.e., killer whale),
and one is classified as a high-frequency
cetaceans (i.e., harbor porpoise)
(Southall et al., 2007). Additionally,
harbor seals are classified as members of
the phocid pinnipeds in water
functional hearing group while Steller
sea lions and California sea lions are
grouped under the Otariid pinnipeds in
water functional hearing group. A
species’ functional hearing group is a
consideration when we analyze the
effects of exposure to sound on marine
mammals.
Acoustic Impacts
Potential Effects of Pile Driving
Sound—The effects of sounds from pile
driving might result in one or more of
the following: Temporary or permanent
hearing impairment, non-auditory
physical or physiological effects,
behavioral disturbance, and masking
(Richardson et al., 1995; Gordon et al.,
2004; Nowacek et al., 2007; Southall et
al., 2007). The effects of pile driving on
marine mammals are dependent on
several factors, including the size, type,
and depth of the animal; the depth,
intensity, and duration of the pile
driving sound; the depth of the water
column; the substrate of the habitat; the
standoff distance between the pile and
the animal; and the sound propagation
properties of the environment. Impacts
to marine mammals from pile driving
activities are expected to result
primarily from acoustic pathways. As
such, the degree of effect is intrinsically
related to the received level and
duration of the sound exposure, which
are in turn influenced by the distance
between the animal and the source. The
further away from the source, the less
intense the exposure should be. The
substrate and depth of the habitat affect
the sound propagation properties of the
environment. Shallow environments are
typically more structurally complex,
which leads to rapid sound attenuation.
In addition, substrates that are soft (e.g.,
sand) would absorb or attenuate the
sound more readily than hard substrates
(e.g., rock) which may reflect the
acoustic wave. Soft porous substrates
would also likely require less time to
drive the pile, and possibly less forceful
equipment, which would ultimately
decrease the intensity of the acoustic
source.
In the absence of mitigation, impacts
to marine species would be expected to
result from physiological and behavioral
responses to both the type and strength
of the acoustic signature (Viada et al.,
2008). The type and severity of
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\24AUN1.SGM
24AUN1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Notices
behavioral impacts are more difficult to
define due to limited studies addressing
the behavioral effects of impulse sounds
on marine mammals. Potential effects
from impulse sound sources can range
in severity from effects such as
behavioral disturbance or tactile
perception to physical discomfort, slight
injury of the internal organs and the
auditory system, or mortality (Yelverton
et al., 1973).
Hearing Impairment and Other
Physical Effects—Marine mammals
exposed to high intensity sound
repeatedly or for prolonged periods can
experience hearing threshold shift (TS),
which is the loss of hearing sensitivity
at certain frequency ranges (Kastak et
al., 1999; Schlundt et al., 2000;
Finneran et al., 2002, 2005). TS can be
permanent (PTS), in which case the loss
of hearing sensitivity is not recoverable,
or temporary (TTS), in which case the
animal’s hearing threshold would
recover over time (Southall et al., 2007).
Marine mammals depend on acoustic
cues for vital biological functions, (e.g.,
orientation, communication, finding
prey, avoiding predators); thus, TTS
may result in reduced fitness in survival
and reproduction. However, this
depends on the frequency and duration
of TTS, as well as the biological context
in which it occurs. TTS of limited
duration, occurring in a frequency range
that does not coincide with that used for
recognition of important acoustic cues,
would have little to no effect on an
animal’s fitness. Repeated sound
exposure that leads to TTS could cause
PTS. PTS constitutes injury, but TTS
does not (Southall et al., 2007). The
following subsections discuss in
somewhat more detail the possibilities
of TTS, PTS, and non-auditory physical
effects.
Temporary Threshold Shift—TTS is
the mildest form of hearing impairment
that can occur during exposure to a
strong sound (Kryter, 1985). While
experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold
rises, and a sound must be stronger in
order to be heard. In terrestrial
mammals, TTS can last from minutes or
hours to days (in cases of strong TTS).
For sound exposures at or somewhat
above the TTS threshold, hearing
sensitivity in both terrestrial and marine
mammals recovers rapidly after
exposure to the sound ends. Few data
on sound levels and durations necessary
to elicit mild TTS have been obtained
for marine mammals, and none of the
published data concern TTS elicited by
exposure to multiple pulses of sound.
Available data on TTS in marine
mammals are summarized in Southall et
al. (2007).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Aug 21, 2015
Jkt 235001
Given the available data, the received
level of a single pulse (with no
frequency weighting) might need to be
approximately 186 dB re 1 mPa2-s (i.e.,
186 dB sound exposure level [SEL] or
approximately 221–226 dB p-p [peak])
in order to produce brief, mild TTS.
Exposure to several strong pulses that
each have received levels near 190 dB
rms (175–180 dB SEL) might result in
cumulative exposure of approximately
186 dB SEL and thus slight TTS in a
small odontocete, assuming the TTS
threshold is (to a first approximation) a
function of the total received pulse
energy.
The above TTS information for
odontocetes is derived from studies on
the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops
truncatus) and beluga whale
(Delphinapterus leucas). There is no
published TTS information for other
species of cetaceans. However,
preliminary evidence from a harbor
porpoise exposed to pulsed sound
suggests that its TTS threshold may
have been lower (Lucke et al., 2009). As
summarized above, data that are now
available imply that TTS is unlikely to
occur unless odontocetes are exposed to
pile driving pulses stronger than 180 dB
re 1 mPa rms.
Permanent Threshold Shift—When
PTS occurs, there is physical damage to
the sound receptors in the ear. In severe
cases, there can be total or partial
deafness, while in other cases the
animal has an impaired ability to hear
sounds in specific frequency ranges
(Kryter, 1985). There is no specific
evidence that exposure to pulses of
sound can cause PTS in any marine
mammal. However, given the possibility
that mammals close to a sound source
can incur TTS, it is possible that some
individuals might incur PTS. Single or
occasional occurrences of mild TTS are
not indicative of permanent auditory
damage, but repeated or (in some cases)
single exposures to a level well above
that causing TTS onset might elicit PTS.
PTS is considered auditory injury
(Southall et al., 2007). Irreparable
damage to the inner or outer cochlear
hair cells may cause PTS, however,
other mechanisms are also involved,
such as exceeding the elastic limits of
certain tissues and membranes in the
middle and inner ears and resultant
changes in the chemical composition of
the inner ear fluids (Southall et al.,
2007).
Relationships between TTS and PTS
thresholds have not been studied in
marine mammals but are assumed to be
similar to those in humans and other
terrestrial mammals, based on
anatomical similarities. PTS might
occur at a received sound level at least
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
51219
several decibels above that inducing
mild TTS if the animal were exposed to
strong sound pulses with rapid rise
time. Based on data from terrestrial
mammals, a precautionary assumption
is that the PTS threshold for impulse
sounds (such as pile driving pulses as
received close to the source) is at least
6 dB higher than the TTS threshold on
a peak-pressure basis and probably
greater than 6 dB (Southall et al., 2007).
On an SEL basis, Southall et al. (2007)
estimated that received levels would
need to exceed the TTS threshold by at
least 15 dB for there to be risk of PTS.
Thus, for cetaceans, Southall et al.
(2007) estimate that the PTS threshold
might be an M-weighted SEL (for the
sequence of received pulses) of
approximately 198 dB re 1 mPa2-s (15 dB
higher than the TTS threshold for an
impulse). Given the higher level of
sound necessary to cause PTS as
compared with TTS, it is considerably
less likely that PTS could occur.
Measured source levels from impact
pile driving can be as high as 214 dB
rms. Although no marine mammals
have been shown to experience TTS or
PTS as a result of being exposed to pile
driving activities, captive bottlenose
dolphins and beluga whales exhibited
changes in behavior when exposed to
strong pulsed sounds (Finneran et al.,
2000, 2002, 2005). The animals tolerated
high received levels of sound before
exhibiting aversive behaviors.
Experiments on a beluga whale showed
that exposure to a single watergun
impulse at a received level of 207 kPa
(30 psi) p-p, which is equivalent to 228
dB p-p, resulted in a 7 and 6 dB TTS
in the beluga whale at 0.4 and 30 kHz,
respectively. Thresholds returned to
within 2 dB of the pre-exposure level
within four minutes of the exposure
(Finneran et al., 2002). Although the
source level of pile driving from one
hammer strike is expected to be much
lower than the single watergun impulse
cited here, animals being exposed for a
prolonged period to repeated hammer
strikes could receive more sound
exposure in terms of SEL than from the
single watergun impulse (estimated at
188 dB re 1 mPa2-s) in the
aforementioned experiment (Finneran et
al., 2002). However, in order for marine
mammals to experience TTS or PTS, the
animals have to be close enough to be
exposed to high intensity sound levels
for a prolonged period of time. Based on
the best scientific information available,
these SPLs are far below the thresholds
that could cause TTS or the onset of
PTS.
Non-auditory Physiological Effects—
Non-auditory physiological effects or
injuries that theoretically might occur in
E:\FR\FM\24AUN1.SGM
24AUN1
51220
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Notices
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
marine mammals exposed to strong
underwater sound include stress,
neurological effects, bubble formation,
resonance effects, and other types of
organ or tissue damage (Cox et al., 2006;
Southall et al., 2007). Studies examining
such effects are limited. In general, little
is known about the potential for pile
driving to cause auditory impairment or
other physical effects in marine
mammals. Available data suggest that
such effects, if they occur at all, would
presumably be limited to short distances
from the sound source and to activities
that extend over a prolonged period.
The available data do not allow
identification of a specific exposure
level above which non-auditory effects
can be expected (Southall et al., 2007)
or any meaningful quantitative
predictions of the numbers (if any) of
marine mammals that might be affected
in those ways. Marine mammals that
show behavioral avoidance of pile
driving, including some odontocetes
and some pinnipeds, are especially
unlikely to incur auditory impairment
or non-auditory physical effects.
Disturbance Reactions
Disturbance includes a variety of
effects, including subtle changes in
behavior, more conspicuous changes in
activities, and displacement. Behavioral
responses to sound are highly variable
and context-specific and reactions, if
any, depend on species, state of
maturity, experience, current activity,
reproductive state, auditory sensitivity,
time of day, and many other factors
(Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et al.,
2003; Southall et al., 2007).
Habituation can occur when an
animal’s response to a stimulus wanes
with repeated exposure, usually in the
absence of unpleasant associated events
(Wartzok et al., 2003). Animals are most
likely to habituate to sounds that are
predictable and unvarying. The opposite
process is sensitization, when an
unpleasant experience leads to
subsequent responses, often in the form
of avoidance, at a lower level of
exposure. Behavioral state may affect
the type of response as well. For
example, animals that are resting may
show greater behavioral change in
response to disturbing sound levels than
animals that are highly motivated to
remain in an area for feeding
(Richardson et al., 1995; NRC, 2003;
Wartzok et al., 2003).
Controlled experiments with captive
marine mammals showed pronounced
behavioral reactions, including
avoidance of loud sound sources
(Ridgway et al., 1997; Finneran et al.,
2003). Observed responses of wild
marine mammals to loud pulsed sound
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Aug 21, 2015
Jkt 235001
sources (typically seismic guns or
acoustic harassment devices, but also
including pile driving) have been varied
but often consist of avoidance behavior
or other behavioral changes suggesting
discomfort (Morton and Symonds, 2002;
Thorson and Reyff, 2006; see also
Gordon et al., 2004; Wartzok et al.,
2003; Nowacek et al., 2007). Responses
to continuous sound, such as vibratory
pile installation, have not been
documented as well as responses to
pulsed sounds.
With both types of pile driving, it is
likely that the onset of pile driving
could result in temporary, short term
changes in an animal’s typical behavior
and/or avoidance of the affected area.
These behavioral changes may include
(Richardson et al., 1995): changing
durations of surfacing and dives,
number of blows per surfacing, or
moving direction and/or speed;
reduced/increased vocal activities;
changing/cessation of certain behavioral
activities (such as socializing or
feeding); visible startle response or
aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke
slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of
areas where sound sources are located;
and/or flight responses (e.g., pinnipeds
flushing into water from haul-outs or
rookeries). Pinnipeds may increase their
haul-out time, possibly to avoid inwater disturbance (Thorson and Reyff,
2006).
The biological significance of many of
these behavioral disturbances is difficult
to predict, especially if the detected
disturbances appear minor. However,
the consequences of behavioral
modification could be expected to be
biologically significant if the change
affects growth, survival, or
reproduction. Significant behavioral
modifications that could potentially
lead to effects on growth, survival, or
reproduction include:
• Changes in diving/surfacing
patterns;
• Habitat abandonment due to loss of
desirable acoustic environment; and
• Cessation of feeding or social
interaction.
The onset of behavioral disturbance
from anthropogenic sound depends on
both external factors (characteristics of
sound sources and their paths) and the
specific characteristics of the receiving
animals (hearing, motivation,
experience, demography) and is difficult
to predict (Southall et al., 2007).
Auditory Masking—Natural and
artificial sounds can disrupt behavior by
masking, or interfering with, a marine
mammal’s ability to hear other sounds.
Masking occurs when the receipt of a
sound is interfered with by another
coincident sound at similar frequencies
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
and at similar or higher levels. Chronic
exposure to excessive, though not highintensity, sound could cause masking at
particular frequencies for marine
mammals that utilize sound for vital
biological functions. Masking can
interfere with detection of acoustic
signals such as communication calls,
echolocation sounds, and
environmental sounds important to
marine mammals. It is important to
distinguish TTS and PTS, which persist
after the sound exposure, from masking,
which occurs only during the sound
exposure. Because masking (without
resulting in TS) is not associated with
abnormal physiological function, it is
not considered a physiological effect,
but rather a potential behavioral effect.
Masking occurs at specific frequency
bands so understanding the frequencies
that the animals utilize is important in
determining any potential behavioral
impacts. Because sound generated from
in-water vibratory pile driving is mostly
concentrated at low frequency ranges, it
may have less effect on high frequency
echolocation sounds made by porpoises.
However, lower frequency man-made
sounds are more likely to affect
detection of communication calls and
other potentially important natural
sounds such as surf and prey sound. It
may also affect communication signals
when they occur near the sound band
and thus reduce the communication
space of animals (e.g., Clark et al., 2009)
and cause increased stress levels (e.g.,
Foote et al., 2004; Holt et al., 2009).
Masking has the potential to impact
species at the population or community
levels as well as at individual levels.
Masking affects both senders and
receivers of the signals and can
potentially in certain circumstances
have long-term chronic effects on
marine mammal species and
populations. Recent research suggests
that low frequency ambient sound levels
have increased by as much as 20 dB
(more than three times in terms of SPL)
in the world’s ocean from pre-industrial
periods, and that most of these increases
are from distant shipping (Hildebrand,
2009). All anthropogenic sound sources,
such as those from vessel traffic, pile
driving, and dredging activities,
contribute to the elevated ambient
sound levels, thus intensifying masking.
Vibratory pile driving may potentially
mask acoustic signals important to
marine mammal species. However, the
short-term duration and limited affected
area would result in insignificant
impacts from masking.
Acoustic Effects, Airborne—Marine
mammals that occur in the project area
could be exposed to airborne sounds
associated with pile driving that have
E:\FR\FM\24AUN1.SGM
24AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Notices
the potential to cause harassment,
depending on their distance from pile
driving activities. Airborne pile driving
sound would have less impact on
cetaceans than pinnipeds because sound
from atmospheric sources does not
transmit well underwater (Richardson et
al., 1995); thus, airborne sound would
only be an issue for pinnipeds either
hauled-out or looking with heads above
water in the project area. Most likely,
airborne sound would cause behavioral
responses similar to those discussed
above in relation to underwater sound.
For instance, anthropogenic sound
could cause hauled-out pinnipeds to
exhibit changes in their normal
behavior, such as reduction in
vocalizations, or cause them to
temporarily abandon their habitat and
move further from the source. Studies
by Blackwell et al. (2004) and Moulton
et al. (2005) indicate a tolerance or lack
of response to unweighted airborne
sounds as high as 112 dB peak and 96
dB rms. However, all estimates for
distances that airborne sound could
travel and exceed the harassment
threshold for in-air disturbance fall far
short of the 1,300 meters to the nearest
known pinniped haulout, the Dog Bay
float. Therefore, airborne noise is not
considered further in this application,
and no incidental take for airborne noise
is requested.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Vessel Interaction
Besides being susceptible to vessel
strikes, cetacean and pinniped
responses to vessels may result in
behavioral changes, including greater
variability in the dive, surfacing, and
respiration patterns; changes in
vocalizations; and changes in swimming
speed or direction (NRC 2003). There
will be a temporary and localized
increase in vessel traffic during
construction.
Potential Effects on Marine Mammal
Habitat
The primary potential impacts to
marine mammal habitat are associated
with elevated sound levels produced by
vibratory and impact pile driving and
removal in the area. However, other
potential impacts to the surrounding
habitat from physical disturbance are
also possible.
Potential Pile Driving Effects on
Prey—Construction activities would
produce continuous (i.e., vibratory pile
driving, down-hole drilling) sounds and
pulsed (i.e. impact driving) sounds.
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) has been
designated within the project area for
the Alaska stocks of Pacific salmon,
walleye pollock, Pacific cod, yellowfin
sole (Limanda aspera), arrowtooth
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Aug 21, 2015
Jkt 235001
flounder (Atheresthes stomias), rock
sole (Lepidopsetta spp.), flathead sole
(Hippoglossoides elassodon), sculpin
(Cottidae), skate (Rajidae), and squid
(Teuthoidea). On 30 April 2013,
informal EFH consultation was
initiated, and NMFS determined that
the project would not adversely affect
EFH and did not offer any EFH
conservation recommendations or
require further consultation (FHWA
2013).
Fish react to sounds that are
especially strong and/or intermittent
low-frequency sounds. Short duration,
sharp sounds can cause overt or subtle
changes in fish behavior and local
distribution. Hastings and Popper (2005)
identified several studies that suggest
fish may relocate to avoid certain areas
of sound energy. Additional studies
have documented effects of pile driving
on fish, although several are based on
studies in support of large, multiyear
bridge construction projects (e.g.,
Scholik and Yan, 2001, 2002; Popper
and Hastings, 2009). Sound pulses at
received levels of 160 dB may cause
subtle changes in fish behavior. SPLs of
180 dB may cause noticeable changes in
behavior (Pearson et al., 1992; Skalski et
al., 1992). SPLs of sufficient strength
have been known to cause injury to fish
and fish mortality.
The most likely impact to fish from
pile driving activities at the project area
would be temporary behavioral
avoidance of the area. The duration of
fish avoidance of this area after pile
driving stops is unknown, but a rapid
return to normal recruitment,
distribution and behavior is anticipated.
In general, impacts to marine mammal
prey species are expected to be minor
and temporary due to the short
timeframe for the project.
Effects to Foraging Habitat—Pile
installation may temporarily increase
turbidity resulting from suspended
sediments. Any increases would be
temporary, localized, and minimal.
DOT&PF must comply with state water
quality standards during these
operations by limiting the extent of
turbidity to the immediate project area.
In general, turbidity associated with pile
installation is localized to about a 25foot radius around the pile (Everitt et al.
1980). Cetaceans are not expected to be
close enough to the project pile driving
areas to experience effects of turbidity,
and any pinnipeds will be transiting the
area and could avoid localized areas of
turbidity. Therefore, the impact from
increased turbidity levels is expected to
be discountable to marine mammals.
Furthermore, pile driving and removal
at the project site will not obstruct
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
51221
movements or migration of marine
mammals.
Proposed Mitigation
In order to issue an IHA under section
101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must
set forth the permissible methods of
taking pursuant to such activity, ‘‘and
other means of effecting the least
practicable impact on such species or
stock and its habitat, paying particular
attention to rookeries, mating grounds,
and areas of similar significance, and on
the availability of such species or stock
for taking’’ for certain subsistence uses.
For the proposed project, DOT&PF
worked with NMFS and proposed the
following mitigation measures to
minimize the potential impacts to
marine mammals in the project vicinity.
The primary purposes of these
mitigation measures are to minimize
sound levels from the activities, and to
monitor marine mammals within
designated zones of influence
corresponding to NMFS’ current Level
A and B harassment thresholds which
are depicted in Table 3 found later in
the Estimated Take by Incidental
Harassment section.
DOT&PF committed to the use of both
impact and vibratory hammers for pile
installation and will implement a softstart procedure.
Mitigation &Monitoring Protocols—
Monitoring would be conducted before,
during, and after pile driving and
removal activities. In addition,
observers shall record all incidents of
marine mammal occurrence, regardless
of distance from activity, and shall
document any behavioral reactions in
concert with distance from piles being
driven. Observations made outside the
shutdown zone will not result in
shutdown; that pile segment would be
completed without cessation, unless the
animal approaches or enters the
shutdown zone, at which point all pile
driving activities would be halted.
Monitoring will take place from 30
minutes prior to initiation through 20
minutes post-completion of pile driving
activities. Pile driving activities include
the time to remove a single pile or series
of piles, as long as the time elapsed
between uses of the pile driving
equipment is no more than thirty
minutes. Please see Appendix A of the
application for details on the marine
mammal monitoring plan developed by
the DOT&PF’s with NMFS’ cooperation.
The following additional measures
apply to visual monitoring:
(1) Monitoring will be conducted by
qualified observers, who will be placed
at the best vantage point(s) practicable
to monitor for marine mammals and
implement shutdown/delay procedures
E:\FR\FM\24AUN1.SGM
24AUN1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
51222
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Notices
when applicable by calling for the
shutdown to the hammer operator.
These vantage points include Jett A or
the barge. Qualified observers are
trained biologists, with the following
minimum qualifications:
(a) Visual acuity in both eyes
(correction is permissible) sufficient for
discernment of moving targets at the
water’s surface with ability to estimate
target size and distance; use of
binoculars may be necessary to correctly
identify the target;
(b) Advanced education in biological
science or related field (undergraduate
degree or higher required);
(c) Experience and ability to conduct
field observations and collect data
according to assigned protocols (this
may include academic experience);
(d) Experience or training in the field
identification of marine mammals,
including the identification of
behaviors;
(e) Sufficient training, orientation, or
experience with the construction
operation to provide for personal safety
during observations;
(f) Writing skills sufficient to prepare
a report of observations including but
not limited to the number and species
of marine mammals observed; dates and
times when in-water construction
activities were conducted; dates and
times when in-water construction
activities were suspended to avoid
potential incidental injury from
construction sound of marine mammals
observed within a defined shutdown
zone; and marine mammal behavior;
and
(g) Ability to communicate orally, by
radio or in person, with project
personnel to provide real-time
information on marine mammals
observed in the area as necessary.
(2) Prior to the start of pile driving
activity, the shutdown zone will be
monitored for 30 minutes to ensure that
it is clear of marine mammals. Pile
driving will only commence once
observers have declared the shutdown
zone clear of marine mammals; animals
will be allowed to remain in the
shutdown zone (i.e., must leave of their
own volition) and their behavior will be
monitored and documented. The
shutdown zone may only be declared
clear, and pile driving started, when the
entire shutdown zone is visible (i.e.,
when not obscured by dark, rain, fog,
etc.). In addition, if such conditions
should arise during impact pile driving
that is already underway, the activity
would be halted.
If a marine mammal approaches or
enters the shutdown zone during the
course of pile driving operations,
activity will be halted and delayed until
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Aug 21, 2015
Jkt 235001
either the animal has voluntarily left
and been visually confirmed beyond the
shutdown zone or 20 minutes have
passed without re-detection of the
animal. Monitoring will be conducted
throughout the time required to drive a
pile.
Ramp Up or Soft Start—The use of a
soft start procedure is believed to
provide additional protection to marine
mammals by warning or providing a
chance to leave the area prior to the
hammer operating at full capacity, and
typically involves a requirement to
initiate sound from the hammer at
reduced energy followed by a waiting
period. This procedure is repeated two
additional times. It is difficult to specify
the reduction in energy for any given
hammer because of variation across
drivers. The project will utilize soft start
techniques for all vibratory and impact
pile driving. We require the DOT&PF to
initiate sound from vibratory hammers
for fifteen seconds at reduced energy
followed by a 1-minute waiting period,
with the procedure repeated two
additional times. For impact driving, we
require an initial set of three strikes
from the impact hammer at reduced
energy, followed by a 1-minute waiting
period, then two subsequent three strike
sets. Soft start will be required at the
beginning of each day’s pile driving
work and at any time following a
cessation of pile driving of 20 minutes
or longer.
If a marine mammal is present within
the Level A harassment zone, ramping
up will be delayed until the animal(s)
leaves the Level A harassment zone.
Activity will begin only after the
Wildlife Observer has determined,
through sighting, that the animal(s) has
moved outside the Level A harassment
zone.
If a Steller sea lion, harbor seal,
harbor porpoise, or killer whale is
present in the Level B harassment zone,
ramping up will begin and a Level B
take will be documented. Ramping up
will occur when these species are in the
Level B harassment zone whether they
entered the Level B zone from the Level
A zone, or from outside the project area.
If any marine mammal other than
Steller sea lions, harbor seals, harbor
porpoises, or killer whales is present in
the Level B harassment zone, ramping
up will be delayed until the animal(s)
leaves the zone. Ramping up will begin
only after the Wildlife Observer has
determined, through sighting, that the
animal(s) has moved outside the
harassment zone.
Pile Caps—Pile caps will be used
during all impact pile-driving activities.
In addition to the measures described
later in this section, the DOT&PF would
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
employ the following standard
mitigation measures:
(a) Conduct briefings between
construction supervisors and crews,
marine mammal monitoring team, and
DOT&PF staff prior to the start of all pile
driving activity, and when new
personnel join the work, in order to
explain responsibilities, communication
procedures, marine mammal monitoring
protocol, and operational procedures.
(b) For in-water heavy machinery
work other than pile driving (using, e.g.,
standard barges, tug boats, bargemounted excavators, or clamshell
equipment used to place or remove
material), if a marine mammal comes
within 10 m, operations shall cease and
vessels shall reduce speed to the
minimum level required to maintain
steerage and safe working conditions.
Monitoring and Shutdown for Pile
Driving
The following measures would apply
to DOT&PF’s mitigation through
shutdown and disturbance zones:
Shutdown Zone—For all pile driving
activities, the DOT&PF’s will establish a
shutdown zone. Shutdown zones are
intended to contain the area in which
SPLs equal or exceed the 180/190 dB
rms acoustic injury criteria, with the
purpose being to define an area within
which shutdown of activity would
occur upon sighting of a marine
mammal (or in anticipation of an animal
entering the defined area), thus
preventing injury of marine mammals.
A conservative 4-meter shutdown zone
will be in effect for Steller sea lions and
harbor seals. The estimated shutdown
zone for Level A injury to harbor
porpoises and killer whales would be 15
meters. DOT&PF, however, would
implement a minimum shutdown zone
of 10 m radius for all marine mammals
around all vibratory pile driving and
removal activities. These precautionary
measures are intended to further reduce
the unlikely possibility of injury from
direct physical interaction with
construction operations.
Disturbance Zone—Disturbance zones
are the areas in which sound pressure
levels (SPLs) equal or exceed 120 dB
rms (for continuous sound) for pile
driving installation and removal.
Disturbance zones provide utility for
monitoring conducted for mitigation
purposes (i.e., shutdown zone
monitoring) by establishing monitoring
protocols for areas adjacent to the
shutdown zones. Monitoring of
disturbance zones enables observers to
be aware of and communicate the
presence of marine mammals in the
project area but outside the shutdown
zone and thus prepare for potential
E:\FR\FM\24AUN1.SGM
24AUN1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Notices
shutdowns of activity. However, the
primary purpose of disturbance zone
monitoring is for documenting incidents
of Level B harassment; disturbance zone
monitoring is discussed in greater detail
later (see ‘‘Proposed Monitoring and
Reporting’’). Nominal radial distances
for disturbance zones are shown in
Table 4 later in this notice. During
impact driving, the Level B harassment
zone shall extend to 225 meters for
Steller sea lions, harbor seals, harbor
porpoises, and killer whales. This 225
meter distance will serve as a shutdown
zone for all other marine mammals
(humpback whale, Dall’s porpoise, gray
whale, fin whale, or any other) to avoid
Level B take. Level B take of humpback
whales, Dall’s porpoises, gray whales,
and fin whales is not requested and will
be avoided by shutting down before
individuals of these species enter the
Level B zone.
During vibratory pile installation and
removal, the Level B harassment zone
shall extend to 1,150 meters for Steller
sea lions, harbor seals, harbor porpoises,
and killer whales. This 1,150-meter
distance will serve as a shutdown zone
for all other marine mammals
(humpback whale, Dall’s porpoise, gray
whale, fin whale, or any other) to avoid
Level B take.
In order to document observed
incidents of harassment, monitors
record all marine mammal observations,
regardless of location. The observer’s
location, as well as the location of the
pile being driven, is known from a GPS.
The location of the animal is estimated
as a distance from the observer, which
is then compared to the location from
the pile and the estimated zone of
influence (ZOI) for relevant activities
(i.e., pile installation and removal). This
information may then be used to
extrapolate observed takes to reach an
approximate understanding of actual
total takes.
Time Restrictions—Work would occur
only during daylight hours, when visual
monitoring of marine mammals can be
conducted. To minimize impacts to
pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha)
fry and coho salmon (O. kisutch) smolt,
all in-water pile extraction and
installation is planned to be completed
by 30 April 2016. If work cannot be
completed by 30 April, the DOT&PF
refrain from impact pile installation
without a bubble curtain from May 1,
through June 30 within the 12-hour
period beginning daily at the start of
civil dawn (Marie 2015). ADF&G stated
that this is the daily time period when
the majority of juvenile salmon are
moving through the project area, and a
12-hour quiet period may protect
migrating juvenile salmon from
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Aug 21, 2015
Jkt 235001
excessive noise (Frost 2015). Impact pile
installation would be acceptable
without a bubble curtain from May 1
through June 30 in the evenings,
beginning at 12 hours past civil dawn
(Marie 2015).
Mitigation Conclusions
NMFS has carefully evaluated the
applicant’s proposed mitigation
measures and considered a range of
other measures in the context of
ensuring that NMFS prescribes the
means of affecting the least practicable
impact on the affected marine mammal
species and stocks and their habitat. Our
evaluation of potential measures
included consideration of the following
factors in relation to one another:
• The manner in which, and the
degree to which, the successful
implementation of the measure is
expected to minimize adverse impacts
to marine mammals.
• The proven or likely efficacy of the
specific measure to minimize adverse
impacts as planned.
• The practicability of the measure
for applicant implementation.
Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed
by NMFS should be able to accomplish,
have a reasonable likelihood of
accomplishing (based on current
science), or contribute to the
accomplishment of one or more of the
general goals listed below:
1. Avoidance or minimization of
injury or death of marine mammals
wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may
contribute to this goal).
2. A reduction in the numbers of
marine mammals (total number or
number at biologically important time
or location) exposed to received levels
of pile driving, or other activities
expected to result in the take of marine
mammals (this goal may contribute to 1,
above, or to reducing harassment takes
only).
3. A reduction in the number of times
(total number or number at biologically
important time or location) individuals
would be exposed to received levels of
pile driving, or other activities expected
to result in the take of marine mammals
(this goal may contribute to 1, above, or
to reducing harassment takes only).
4. A reduction in the intensity of
exposures (either total number or
number at biologically important time
or location) to received levels of pile
driving, or other activities expected to
result in the take of marine mammals
(this goal may contribute to a, above, or
to reducing the severity of harassment
takes only).
5. Avoidance or minimization of
adverse effects to marine mammal
habitat, paying special attention to the
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
51223
food base, activities that block or limit
passage to or from biologically
important areas, permanent destruction
of habitat, or temporary destruction/
disturbance of habitat during a
biologically important time.
6. For monitoring directly related to
mitigation—an increase in the
probability of detecting marine
mammals, thus allowing for more
effective implementation of the
mitigation.
Based on our evaluation of the
applicant’s proposed measures, as well
as other measures considered by NMFS,
NMFS has preliminarily determined
that the proposed mitigation measures
provide the means of effecting the least
practicable impact on marine mammals
species or stocks and their habitat,
paying particular attention to rookeries,
mating grounds, and areas of similar
significance.
Proposed Monitoring and Reporting
In order to issue an ITA for an
activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the
MMPA states that NMFS must set forth,
‘‘requirements pertaining to the
monitoring and reporting of such
taking.’’ The MMPA implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13)
indicate that requests for incidental take
authorizations (ITAs) must include the
suggested means of accomplishing the
necessary monitoring and reporting that
will result in increased knowledge of
the species and of the level of taking or
impacts on populations of marine
mammals that are expected to be
present in the proposed action area.
Monitoring measures prescribed by
NMFS should accomplish one or more
of the following general goals:
1. An increase in the probability of
detecting marine mammals, both within
the mitigation zone (thus allowing for
more effective implementation of the
mitigation) and in general to generate
more data to contribute to the analyses
mentioned below,
2. An increase in our understanding
of how many marine mammals are
likely to be exposed to levels of pile
driving that we associate with specific
adverse effects, such as behavioral
harassment, TTS, or PTS.
3. An increase in our understanding
of how marine mammals respond to
stimuli expected to result in take and
how anticipated adverse effects on
individuals (in different ways and to
varying degrees) may impact the
population, species, or stock
(specifically through effects on annual
rates of recruitment or survival) through
any of the following methods:
D Behavioral observations in the
presence of stimuli compared to
E:\FR\FM\24AUN1.SGM
24AUN1
51224
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Notices
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
observations in the absence of stimuli
(need to be able to accurately predict
received level, distance from source,
and other pertinent information);
D Physiological measurements in the
presence of stimuli compared to
observations in the absence of stimuli
(need to be able to accurately predict
received level, distance from source,
and other pertinent information);
D Distribution and/or abundance
comparisons in times or areas with
concentrated stimuli versus times or
areas without stimuli;
4. An increased knowledge of the
affected species; and
5. An increase in our understanding
of the effectiveness of certain mitigation
and monitoring measures.
The DOT&PF submitted a marine
mammal monitoring plan as part of the
IHA application for this project, which
can be found at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/
permits/incidental/construction.htm.
The plan may be modified or
supplemented based on comments or
new information received from the
public during the public comment
period.
Visual Marine Mammal Observation
The DOT&PF will collect sighting
data and behavioral responses to
construction for marine mammal
species observed in the region of
activity during the period of activity. All
observers will be trained in marine
mammal identification and behaviors
and are required to have no other
construction-related tasks while
conducting monitoring. The DOT&PF
will monitor the shutdown zone and
disturbance zone before, during, and
after pile driving. The Marine Mammal
Observers (MMOs) and DOT&PF
authorities will meet to determine the
most appropriate observation
platform(s) for monitoring during pile
installation and extraction.
Based on our requirements, the
Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan would
implement the following procedures for
pile driving:
• Individuals meeting the minimum
qualifications identified in the
applicant’s monitoring plan (Appendix
A of the application) would monitor
Level A and Level B harassment zones
during pile driving and extraction
activities.
• The area within the Level B
harassment threshold for impact driving
will be monitored by appropriately
stationed MMOs. Any marine mammal
documented within the Level B
harassment zone during impact driving
would constitute a Level B take
(harassment), and will be recorded and
reported as such.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Aug 21, 2015
Jkt 235001
• During Impact and vibratory pile
driving, a shutdown zone will be
established to include all areas where
the underwater SPLs are anticipated to
equal or exceed the Level A (injury)
criteria for marine mammals (180 dB
isopleth for cetaceans; 190 dB isopleth
for pinnipeds). Pile installation will not
commence or will be suspended
temporarily if any marine mammals are
observed within or approaching the
area.
• The individuals will scan the
waters within each monitoring zone
activity using binoculars (Vector 10X42
or equivalent), spotting scopes
(Swarovski 20–60 zoom or equivalent),
and visual observation.
• Use a hand-held or boat-mounted
GPS device or rangefinder to verify the
required monitoring distance from the
project site.
• If waters exceed a sea-state which
restricts the observers’ ability to make
observations within the marine mammal
shutdown zone (e.g. excessive wind or
fog), pile installation will cease. Pile
driving will not be initiated until the
entire shutdown zone is visible.
• Conduct pile driving and extraction
activities only during daylight hours
from sunrise to sunset when it is
possible to visually monitor marine
mammals.
• The waters will be scanned 30
minutes prior to commencing pile
driving at the beginning of each day,
and prior to commencing pile driving
after any stoppage of 20 minutes or
greater. If marine mammals enter or are
observed within the designated marine
mammal shutdown zone during or 20
minutes prior to pile driving, the
monitors will notify the on-site
construction manager to not begin until
the animal has moved outside the
designated radius.
• The waters will continue to be
scanned for at least 20 minutes after pile
driving has completed each day, and
after each stoppage of 20 minutes or
greater.
Data Collection
We require that observers use
approved data forms. Among other
pieces of information, the DOT&PF will
record detailed information about any
implementation of shutdowns,
including the distance of animals to the
pile and description of specific actions
that ensued and resulting behavior of
the animal, if any. In addition, the
DOT&PF will attempt to distinguish
between the number of individual
animals taken and the number of
incidents of take. We require that, at a
minimum, the following information be
collected on the sighting forms:
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
• Date and time that monitored
activity begins or ends;
• Construction activities occurring
during each observation period;
• Weather parameters (e.g., percent
cover, visibility);
• Water conditions (e.g., sea state,
tide state);
• Species, numbers, and, if possible,
sex and age class of marine mammals;
• Description of any observable
marine mammal behavior patterns,
including bearing and direction of travel
and distance from pile driving activity;
• Distance from pile driving activities
to marine mammals and distance from
the marine mammals to the observation
point;
• Locations of all marine mammal
observations; and
• Other human activity in the area.
Proposed Reporting Measures
The DOT&PF would provide NMFS
with a draft monitoring report within 90
days of the conclusion of the proposed
construction work. This report will
detail the monitoring protocol,
summarize the data recorded during
monitoring, and estimate the number of
marine mammals that may have been
harassed. If no comments are received
from NMFS within 30 days, the draft
final report will constitute the final
report. If comments are received, a final
report must be submitted within 30 days
after receipt of comments.
In the unanticipated event that the
specified activity clearly causes the take
of a marine mammal in a manner
prohibited by the IHA (if issued), such
as an injury (Level A harassment),
serious injury or mortality (e.g., shipstrike, gear interaction, and/or
entanglement), the DOT&PF would
immediately cease the specified
activities and immediately report the
incident to Jolie Harrison
(Jolie.Harrison@NOAA.gov), Chief of the
Permits and Conservation Division,
Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,
and Aleria Jensen (Aleria.Jensen@
noaa.gov), Alaska Stranding
Coordinator. The report would include
the following information:
• Time, date, and location (latitude/
longitude) of the incident;
• Name and type of vessel involved;
• Vessel’s speed during and leading
up to the incident;
• Description of the incident;
• Status of all sound source use in the
24 hours preceding the incident;
• Water depth;
• Environmental conditions (e.g.,
wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea
state, cloud cover, and visibility);
• Description of all marine mammal
observations in the 24 hours preceding
the incident;
E:\FR\FM\24AUN1.SGM
24AUN1
51225
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Notices
• Species identification or
description of the animal(s) involved;
• Fate of the animal(s); and
• Photographs or video footage of the
animal(s) (if equipment is available).
Activities would not resume until
NMFS is able to review the
circumstances of the prohibited take.
NMFS would work with the DOT&PF to
determine what is necessary to
minimize the likelihood of further
prohibited take and ensure MMPA
compliance. The DOT&PF would not be
able to resume their activities until
notified by NMFS via letter, email, or
telephone.
In the event that the DOT&PF
discovers an injured or dead marine
mammal, and the lead MMO determines
that the cause of the injury or death is
unknown and the death is relatively
recent (i.e., in less than a moderate state
of decomposition as described in the
next paragraph), the DOT&PF would
immediately report the incident to Jolie
Harrison (Jolie.Harrison@nooa.gov),
Chief of the Permits and Conservation
Division, Office of Protected Resources,
NMFS, and Aleria Jensen
(Aleria.Jensen@noaa.gov), Alaska
Stranding Coordinator.
The report would include the same
information identified in the paragraph
above. Activities would be able to
continue while NMFS reviews the
circumstances of the incident. NMFS
would work with the DOT&PF to
determine whether modifications in the
activities are appropriate.
In the event that the DOT&PF
discovers an injured or dead marine
mammal, and the lead MMO determines
that the injury or death is not associated
with or related to the activities
authorized in the IHA (e.g., previously
wounded animal, carcass with moderate
to advanced decomposition, or
scavenger damage), the DOT&PF would
report the incident to Jolie Harrison
(Jolie.Harrison@noaa.gov), Chief of the
Permits and Conservation Division,
Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,
the Chief of the Permits and
Conservation Division, Office of
Protected Resources, NMFS, and the
NMFS West Coast Stranding Hotline
and/or by email to Aleria Jensen
(Aleria.Jensen@noaa.gov), Alaska
Stranding Coordinator, within 24 hours
of the discovery. The DOT&PF would
provide photographs or video footage (if
available) or other documentation of the
stranded animal sighting to NMFS and
the Marine Mammal Stranding Network.
Estimated Take by Incidental
Harassment
Except with respect to certain
activities not pertinent here, section
3(18) of the MMPA defines
‘‘harassment’’ as: ‘‘. . . any act of
pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i)
has the potential to injure a marine
mammal or marine mammal stock in the
wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has
the potential to disturb a marine
mammal or marine mammal stock in the
wild by causing disruption of behavioral
patterns, including, but not limited to,
migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering [Level B
harassment].’’
All anticipated takes would be by
Level A and Level B harassment
resulting from vibratory pile driving and
removal. Level A harassment has the
potential to cause injury to a marine
mammal or marine mammal stock while
Level B harassment may result in
temporary changes in behavior. Note
that lethal takes are not expected due to
the proposed mitigation and monitoring
measures that are expected to minimize
the possibility of such take.
If a marine mammal responds to a
stimulus by changing its behavior (e.g.,
through relatively minor changes in
locomotion direction/speed or
vocalization behavior), the response
may or may not constitute taking at the
individual level, and is unlikely to
affect the stock or the species as a
whole. However, if a sound source
displaces marine mammals from an
important feeding or breeding area for a
prolonged period, impacts on animals or
on the stock or species could potentially
be significant (e.g., Lusseau and Bejder,
2007; Weilgart, 2007). Given the many
uncertainties in predicting the quantity
and types of impacts of sound on
marine mammals, it is common practice
to estimate how many animals are likely
to be present within a particular
distance of a given activity, or exposed
to a particular level of sound.
Upland work can generate airborne
sound and create visual disturbance that
could potentially result in disturbance
to marine mammals (specifically,
pinnipeds) that are hauled out or at the
water’s surface with heads above the
water. However, because there are no
regular haul-outs in close proximity to
Pier 1, NMFS believes that incidents of
incidental take resulting from airborne
sound or visual disturbance are
unlikely.
DOT&PF has requested authorization
for the incidental taking of small
numbers of killer whale, harbor
porpoise, Steller sea lion, and harbor
seal near the Pier 1 project area that may
result from impact and vibratory pile
driving, vibratory pile removal and
down-hole drilling construction
activities associated with the dock
improvement project at Pier 1.
In order to estimate the potential
incidents of take that may occur
incidental to the specified activity, we
must first estimate the extent of the
sound field that may be produced by the
activity and then consider in
combination with information about
marine mammal density or abundance
in the project area. We first provide
information on applicable sound
thresholds for determining effects to
marine mammals before describing the
information used in estimating the
sound fields, the available marine
mammal density or abundance
information, and the method of
estimating potential incidences of take.
Sound Thresholds
We use the following generic sound
exposure thresholds to determine when
an activity that produces sound might
result in impacts to a marine mammal
such that a take by harassment might
occur.
TABLE 3—UNDERWATER INJURY AND DISTURBANCE THRESHOLD DECIBEL LEVELS FOR MARINE MAMMALS
Criterion
Criterion definition
Threshold *
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Level A harassment ...................................
PTS (injury) conservatively based on TTS.**
Level B harassment ...................................
Level B harassment ...................................
Behavioral disruption for impulse noise (e.g., impact pile driving) ........
Behavioral disruption for non-pulse noise (e.g., vibratory pile driving,
drilling).
190
180
160
120
dB
dB
dB
dB
RMS for pinnipeds
RMS for cetaceans.
RMS.
RMS.
* All decibel levels referenced to 1 micropascal (re: 1 μPa). Note all thresholds are based off root mean square (RMS) levels.
** PTS = Permanent Threshold Shift; TTS = Temporary Threshold Shift.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Aug 21, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\24AUN1.SGM
24AUN1
51226
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Notices
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Distance to Sound Thresholds
The sound field in the project area is
the existing ambient noise plus
additional construction noise from the
proposed project. The primary
components of the project expected to
affect marine mammals is the sound
generated by impact pile driving,
vibratory pile driving, vibratory pile
removal and down-hole drilling. Direct
pull and clamshell removal of old
timber piles do not produce noise levels
expected to impact marine mammals,
although, depending on conditions,
these may require vibratory hammer
removal.
After vibratory hammering has
installed the pile through the
overburden to the top of the bedrock
layer, the vibratory hammer will be
removed, and the down-hole drill will
be inserted through the pile. The head
extends below the pile and the drill
rotates through soils and rock. The
drilling/hammering takes place below
the sediment layer and, as the drill
advances, below the bedrock layer as
well. Underwater noise levels are
relatively low because the impact is
taking place below the substrate rather
than at the top of the piling, which
limits transmission of noise through the
water column. Additionally, there is a
drive shoe welded on the bottom of the
pile and the upper portion of the bit
rests on the shoe, which aids in
advancement of the pile as drilling
progresses. When the proper depth is
achieved, the drill is retracted and the
pile is left in place. Down-hole drilling
is considered a pulsed noise due to
periodic impacts from the drill below
ground level (PND Engineers 2013).
Impact hammering typically generates
the loudest noise associated with pile
driving, but for the Pier 1 project, use
will be limited to a few blows per
permanent 24-inch pile.
Several factors are expected to
minimize the potential impacts of piledriving and drilling noise associated
with the project:
• The soft sediment marine seafloor
and shallow waters in the proposed
project area.
• Land forms across the channel that
will block the noise from spreading .
• The relatively high background
noise level in the project area.
Sound will dissipate relatively
rapidly in the shallow waters over soft
seafloors in the project area (NMFS
2013). St. Herman Harbor (Figure 1–2 in
the application), where the Dog Bay
float is located, is protected from the
Pier 1 construction noise by land
projections and islands, which will
block and redirect sound. Near Island
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Aug 21, 2015
Jkt 235001
and Kodiak Island, on either side of
Near Island Channel, prevent the sound
from travelling underwater to the north,
south, and southeast, restricting the
noise to the channel.
The project includes direct pulling
and possibly vibratory removal of 13inch timber and 16-inch steel piles;
vibratory installation and removal of
temporary steel pipe or H-piles;
vibratory installation and down-hole
drilling of permanent 24-inch steel pipe
piles; and vibratory installation of 18inch steel pipe piles and 16-inch timber
piles (16 inches is the typical butt/top
dimension, and these are typically
around 12-inches in diameter at the pile
tip/bottom). Each 24-inch pile will also
be subject to a few blows from an
impact hammer for proofing. No data
are available for vibratory removal of
piles, so it will be conservatively
assumed that vibratory removal of piles
will produce the same source level as
vibratory installation.
Vibratory extraction and installation
of timber piles will be estimated to
generate 152 dB rms at 16 meters as is
shown in Table 6–3 of the application
(Laughlin 2011). Vibratory extraction of
16-inch steel piles will be
conservatively estimated to generate the
same sound as installation of 24-inch
piles (162 dB rms at 10 meters).
Little information is available for
sound generated during vibratory
installation or removal of steel H-piles;
however, ICF Jones & Stokes and
Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. (2009)
reported that the typical noise level
during vibratory hammering was 147 dB
rms at 10 meters for 10-inch steel Hpiles and 150 dB rms at 10 meters for
12-inch steel H-piles. Vibratory
installation and removal of temporary
steel pipe or H-piles will therefore be
estimated to generate 150 dB rms at 10
meters (Table 6–3).
Vibratory installation of a 24-inch
steel pile generated 162 dB rms
measured at 10 meters (Laughlin 2010a).
Vibratory installation of 12-inch and 36inch steel piles generated 150 and 170
dB rms at 10 meters, respectively
(Maine Department of Transportation
and Eastport Port Authority 2014),
further supporting the intermediate
estimate of 162 dB rms for driving 24inch steel piles (Table 6–3).
Vibratory installation of 18-inch steel
piles will be conservatively estimated to
generate the same sound as driving of
24-inch piles (162 dB rms at 10 meters).
No data are available for the vibratory
installation of 12-inch timber piles;
therefore, vibratory installation of 12inch timber piles will also be
conservatively estimated to generate the
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
same sound level as installation of 24inch steel piles (Table 6–3).
Dazey et al. (2012) measured sound
levels generated by down-hole drilling
and found the average calculated source
SPL to be 133 dB rms. URS (2011)
reported that down-hole drilling
methods generate pulses with a
maximum sound source level of 165 dB
(re 1 mPa at 1 meter) at 200 Hz. The 160dB isopleth (Level B harassment for
pulsed noise sources) for a down-hole
drill was estimated to be 3 meters
during a project in Australia that
included installation of piles (URS
2011). Down-hole drilling will therefore
be estimated to generate 160 dB rms at
3 meters (Table 6–3).
Impact driving of 24-inch steel piles
is commonly assumed to generate 189
dB rms measured at 10 meters (WSDOT
2010). Laughlin (2006) reported that use
of Micarta caps resulted in 7- to 8-dB
reductions in sound level. A
conservative reduction of 6 dB therefore
yields an estimate of 183 dB rms at 10
meters if pile caps are used (Table 6–3).
Underwater Sound Propagation
Formula—Pile driving generates
underwater noise that can potentially
result in disturbance to marine
mammals in the project area.
Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease
in acoustic intensity as an acoustic
pressure wave propagates out from a
source. TL parameters vary with
frequency, temperature, sea conditions,
current, source and receiver depth,
water depth, water chemistry, and
bottom composition and topography.
The general formula for underwater TL
is:
TL = B * log10 (R1/R2),
where:
TL = transmission loss in dB
R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from
the driven pile, and
R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the
initial measurement.
NMFS typically recommends a
default practical spreading loss of 15 dB
per tenfold increase in distance.
However, for this analysis for the Pier 1
project area, a TL of 18Log(R/10) (i.e.,
18–dB loss per tenfold increase in
distance) was used for vibratory pile
driving and a 17Log TL(R/10) function
was used for impact driving (Illingworth
& Rodkin 2014). TL values were based
on measured attenuation rates in Hood
Canal in the State of Washington
(Illingworth & Rodkin 2013), where the
marine environment is assumed to be
similar to marine conditions in the Pier
1 project area. Illingworth & Rodkin
(2013, 2014) have applied these same
TL values to a test pile project proposed
at the Port of Anchorage, and other
E:\FR\FM\24AUN1.SGM
24AUN1
51227
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Notices
researchers have measured similar
attenuation rates for pile-driving
projects (Caltrans 2012). Field
measurements of TL can be as high as
22 to 29 dB per tenfold increase in
distance in some locations (e.g., Knik
Arm, Alaska; Blackwell 2005), and the
use of these values is therefore
considered a conservative application.
Distances to the harassment isopleths
vary by marine mammal type and pile
extraction/driving tool. The Level B
harassment isopleth during impact pile
driving is 225 meters when pile caps are
used; 1,136 meters during vibratory pile
driving; and 3 meters during down-hole
drilling (Table 6–6; Figure 6–1). The
Level B harassment monitoring zone for
vibratory pile driving will be rounded
up to 1,150 meters for the Pier 1 project.
Level A harassment of Steller sea lions
would occur only within 4 meters if pile
caps are used during impact
hammering, or within 9 meters if pile
caps are not used as is shown in
Table 4.
TABLE 4—DISTANCES IN METERS FROM PIER 1 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY TO NMFS’ LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT
THRESHOLDS (ISOPLETHS) FOR DIFFERENT PILE INSTALLATION AND EXTRACTION METHODS AND PILE TYPES, ASSUMING A 125-dB BACKGROUND NOISE LEVEL
Level A
Level B
Method, Pile Type
Pinnipeds
Cetaceans
Pinnipeds and
Cetaceans
Vibratory Hammer
Timber pile extraction ..................................................................................................................
Steel H-piles ................................................................................................................................
24-inch steel piles ........................................................................................................................
18-inch steel piles ........................................................................................................................
16-inch timber piles .....................................................................................................................
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
1
1
1
506
167
1136
1136
1136
<1
<1
3
4
15
225
9
34
508
Down-hole Drill
24-inch steel piles ........................................................................................................................
Impact Hammer
With caps
24-inch steel piles ........................................................................................................................
Without caps
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
24-inch steel piles ........................................................................................................................
Note that the actual area insonified by
pile driving activities is significantly
constrained by local topography relative
to the total threshold radius. The actual
insonified area was determined using a
straight line-of-sight projection from the
anticipated pile driving locations.
Distances to the underwater sound
isopleths for Level B and Level A are
illustrated respectively in Figure 6–1
and Figure 6–2 in the application.
The method used for calculating
potential exposures to impact and
vibratory pile driving noise for each
threshold was estimated using local
marine mammal data sets, the Biological
Opinion, best professional judgment
from state and federal agencies, and data
from IHA estimates on similar projects
with similar actions. All estimates are
conservative and include the following
assumptions:
• All pilings installed at each site
would have an underwater noise
disturbance equal to the piling that
causes the greatest noise disturbance
(i.e., the piling furthest from shore)
installed with the method that has the
largest ZOI. The largest underwater
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Aug 21, 2015
Jkt 235001
disturbance ZOI would be produced by
vibratory driving steel and timber piles.
The ZOIs for each threshold are not
spherical and are truncated by land
masses on either side of the channel
which would dissipate sound pressure
waves.
• Exposures were based on estimated
work days. Numbers of days were based
on an average production rate of 80 days
of vibratory driving, 22 days of impact
driving and 60 days of down-hole
drilling. Note that impact driving is
likely to occur only on days when
vibratory driving occurs.
• In absence of site specific
underwater acoustic propagation
modeling, the practical spreading loss
model was used to determine the ZOI.
Steller Sea Lions
Incidental take was estimated for
Steller sea lions by assuming that,
within any given day, about 40 unique
individual Steller sea lions may be
present at some time during that day
within the Level B harassment zone
during active pile extraction or
installation. This estimate was derived
from the following information,
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
previously described in the FR in the
section
Description of Marine Mammals in the
Area of the Specified Activity
Pinniped population estimates are
typically made when the animals are
hauled out and available to be counted.
Steller sea lions hauled out on the Dog
Bay float are believed to represent the
Kodiak Harbor population. Aerial
surveys from 2004 through 2006
indicated peak winter (October–April)
counts at the Dog Bay float ranging from
27 to 33 animals (Wynn et al. 2011).
Counts in February 2015 during a site
visit by HDR biologists ranged from
approximately 28 to 45 Steller sea lions.
More than 100 Steller sea lions were
counted on the Dog Bay float at times in
spring 2015, although the mean number
was much smaller (Wynne 2015b).
Together, this information may indicate
a maximum population of about 120
Steller sea lions that uses the Kodiak
harbor area.
Steller sea lions found in more
‘‘natural’’ settings do not usually eat
every day, but tend to forage every 1–
E:\FR\FM\24AUN1.SGM
24AUN1
51228
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Notices
2 days and return to haulouts to rest
between foraging trips (Merrick and
Loughlin 1997; Rehburg et al. 2009).
This means that on any given day a
maximum of about 60 Steller sea lions
from the local population may be
foraging. Note that there are at least four
other seafood processing facilities in
Kodiak that operate concurrently with
the one located next to Pier 1, and all
are visited by local Steller sea lions
looking for food (Wynne 2015a). The
seafood processing facility adjacent to
the Pier 1 project site is not the only
source of food for local Steller sea lions
that inhabit the harbor area. The
foraging habits of Steller sea lions using
the Dog Bay float and Kodiak harbor
area are not documented, but it is
reasonable to assume that, given the
abundance of readily available food, not
every Steller sea lion in the area visits
the seafood processing plant adjacent to
Pier 1 every day. If about half of the
foraging Steller sea lions visit the
seafood processing plant adjacent to
Pier 1, it is estimated that about 30
unique individual Steller sea lions
likely pass through the Pier 1 project
area each day and could be exposed to
Level B harassment. To be conservative,
exposure is estimated at 40 unique
individual Steller sea lions per day.
It is assumed that Steller sea lions
may be present every day, and also that
take will include multiple harassments
of the same individual(s) both within
and among days, which means that
these estimates are likely an
overestimate of the number of
individuals.
Expected durations of pile extraction
and driving were estimated in Section
1.4 of the application. For each pile
extraction or installation activity, the
calculation for Steller sea lion exposures
to underwater noise is therefore
estimated as:
Exposure estimate = (number of
animals exposed > sound thresholds)/
day * number of days of activity
An estimated total of 3,200 Steller sea
lions (40 sea lions/day * 80 days of pile
installation or extraction) could be
exposed to noise at the Level B
harassment level during vibratory and
impact pile driving (Table 5). The
expected take from exposure to noise
from down-hole drilling is expected to
be very low because of the low noise
levels produced by this type of pile
installation, and the 3-meter distance to
the Level B isopleth. Potential exposure
at the Level B harassment level for
down-hole drilling is estimated at 60
Steller sea lions, roughly one every one
to two days.
TABLE 5—NUMBERS OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURES OF STELLER SEA LIONS TO LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT NOISE
FROM PILE DRIVING BASED ON PREDICTED UNDERWATER NOISE LEVELS RESULTING FROM PROJECT ACTIVITIES
Vibratory
and impact
Down-hole
drill
Impact
hammer
Level B
Level B
Level A
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Number of Days .........................................................................................................
Number of Steller Sea Lion Exposures .....................................................................
The attraction of sea lions to the
seafood processing plant increases the
possibility of individual Steller sea lions
occasionally entering the Level A
harassment zone before they are
observed and before pile driving can be
shut down. Even with marine mammal
observers present at all times during
pile installation, it is possible that sea
lions could approach quickly and enter
the Level A harassment zone, even as
pile driving activity is being shut down.
This likelihood is increased by the high
level of sea lion activity in the area,
with Steller sea lions following vessels
and swimming around vessels at the
neighboring dock. It is possible that a
single sea lion could be taken each day
that impact pile driving occurs. As such,
NMFS proposes an additional 22 Level
A takes plus a roughly 30 percent
contingency of 8 additional takes, for a
total of 30 takes for Level A harassment.
Potential for Level A harassment of
Steller sea lions is estimated to only
occur during impact hammering due to
the very small Level A harassment
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Aug 21, 2015
Jkt 235001
80
3,200
zones for all other construction
activities.
Harbor Seals
Harbor seals are expected to be
encountered in low numbers, if at all,
within the project area. However, based
on the known range of the South Kodiak
stock, and occasional sightings during
monitoring of projects at other locations
on Kodiak Island, NMFS proposes 40
Level B takes (1 take every other day) of
harbor seals by exposure to underwater
noise over the duration of construction
activities.
Harbor Porpoises
Harbor porpoises are expected to be
encountered in low numbers, if at all,
within the project area. However, based
on the known range of the Gulf of
Alaska stock and occasional sightings
during monitoring of projects at other
locations on Kodiak Island, NMFS
proposes 40 Level B takes (1 take every
other day) of harbor porpoises by
exposure to underwater noise over the
duration of construction activities.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
60
60
22
30
Killer Whales
Resident killer whales are rarely
sighted in the project area and,
therefore, NMFS is not proposing the
take of any resident killer whales.
Transient killer whales are expected to
be encountered in the project area
occasionally, although no data exist to
quantify killer whale attendance. Killer
whales are expected to be in the Kodiak
harbor area sporadically from January
through April and to enter the project
area in low numbers. Based on the
known range and behavior of the Alaska
Resident stock and the Gulf of Alaska,
Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea
Transient stocks, it is reasonable to
estimate that 6 individual whales may
enter the project area twice a month
from February through May. NMFS
therefore proposes 48 Level B takes (6
killer whales/visit * 2 visits/month * 4
months) of killer whales by exposure to
underwater noise over the duration of
construction activities.
E:\FR\FM\24AUN1.SGM
24AUN1
51229
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Notices
TABLE 6—SUMMARY OF THE ESTIMATED NUMBERS OF MARINE MAMMALS POTENTIALLY EXPOSED TO LEVEL A AND LEVEL
B HARASSMENT NOISE LEVELS SPECIES
Level
threshold
cetaceans
(180 dB)
Species
Level injury
threshold
pinnipeds
(190 dB)
Level B
harassment
threshold
(160 dB)
Total
Steller sea lion .................................................................................................
Harbor seal ......................................................................................................
Harbor porpoise ...............................................................................................
Killer whale ......................................................................................................
NA
NA
0
0
30
0
NA
NA
3,260
40
40
48
3,290
40
40
48
Total ..........................................................................................................
0
30
3,388
3,418
NA indicates Not Applicable.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Analysis and Preliminary
Determinations
Negligible Impact
Negligible impact is ‘‘an impact
resulting from the specified activity that
cannot be reasonably expected to, and is
not reasonably likely to, adversely affect
the species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival’’
(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact
finding is based on the lack of likely
adverse effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival (i.e., populationlevel effects). An estimate of the number
of Level B harassment takes, alone, is
not enough information on which to
base an impact determination. In
addition to considering estimates of the
number of marine mammals that might
be ‘‘taken’’ through behavioral
harassment, NMFS must consider other
factors, such as the likely nature of any
responses (their intensity, duration,
etc.), the context of any responses
(critical reproductive time or location,
migration, etc.), as well as the number
and nature of estimated Level A
harassment takes, the number of
estimated mortalities, effects on habitat,
and the status of the species.
To avoid repetition, the discussion of
our analyses applies to all the species
listed in Table 6, given that the
anticipated effects of this pile driving
project on marine mammals are
expected to be relatively similar in
nature. There is no information about
the size, status, or structure of any
species or stock that would lead to a
different analysis for this activity, else
species-specific factors would be
identified and analyzed.
Pile extraction, pile driving, and
down-hole drilling activities associated
with the reconstruction of the Pier 1
Kodiak Ferry Terminal and Dock, as
outlined previously, have the potential
to disturb or displace marine mammals.
Specifically, the specified activities may
result in take, in the form of Level A
(injury) and Level B harassment
(behavioral disturbance), from
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Aug 21, 2015
Jkt 235001
underwater sounds generated from pile
driving. Potential takes could occur if
individuals of these species are present
in the insonified zone when pile driving
is under way.
The takes from Level B harassment
will be due to potential behavioral
disturbance and TTS. The takes from
Level A harassment will be due to
potential PTS. No mortality is
anticipated given the nature of the
activity and measures designed to
minimize the possibility of injury to
marine mammals. The potential for
these outcomes is minimized through
the construction method and the
implementation of the planned
mitigation measures. Specifically, the
use of impact driving will be limited to
an estimated maximum of 3 hours over
the course of 80 days of construction,
and will likely require less time. Each
24-inch pile will require about five
blows of an impact hammer to confirm
that piles are set into bedrock for a
maximum time expected of 1 minute of
impact hammering per pile (88 piles ×
1 minute/per pile = 88 minutes).
Vibratory driving will be necessary for
an estimated maximum of 75 hours and
down-hole drilling will require a
maximum of 550 hours. Vibratory
driving and down-hole drilling do not
have significant potential to cause
injury to marine mammals due to the
relatively low source levels produced
and the lack of potentially injurious
source characteristics. The likelihood
that marine mammal detection ability
by trained observers is high under the
environmental conditions described for
the reconstruction of the Pier 1 Kodiak
Ferry Terminal and Dock further
enables the implementation of
shutdowns to limit injury, serious
injury, or mortality.
The DOT&PF’s proposed activities are
localized and of short duration. The
entire project area is limited to the Pier
1 area and its immediate surroundings.
Actions covered under the
Authorization would include extracting
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
196 13-inch timber piles, 14 16-inch
steel piles, installing 88 temporary steel
or H-piles, extracting those 88 piles,
installing 88 24-inch steel piles, 10 18inch steel piles and 8 16-inch timber
piles.
These localized and short-term noise
exposures may cause auditory injury to
a small number of Steller sea lions, as
well as short-term behavioral
modifications in killer whales, Steller
sea lions, harbor porpoises, and harbor
seals. Moreover, the proposed
mitigation and monitoring measures are
expected to reduce the likelihood of
injury and behavior exposures.
Additionally, no important feeding and/
or reproductive areas for marine
mammals are known to be near the
proposed action area. Therefore, the
take resulting from the proposed project
is not reasonably expected to and is not
reasonably likely to adversely affect the
marine mammal species or stocks
through effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival.
The project also is not expected to
have significant adverse effects on
affected marine mammals’ habitat,
including Steller sea lion critical
habitat. The project activities would not
modify existing marine mammal habitat.
The activities may cause some fish to
leave the area of disturbance, thus
temporarily impacting marine
mammals’ foraging opportunities in a
limited portion of the foraging range;
but, because of the short duration of the
activities and the relatively small area of
the habitat that may be affected, the
impacts to marine mammal habitat are
not expected to cause significant or
long-term negative consequences.
Effects on individuals that are taken
by Level A harassment may include
permanent threshold shift. However, the
possibility exists that some of the sea
lions frequenting the Kodiak harbor area
are already hearing-impaired or deaf
(Wynne 2014). Fishermen have been
known to protect their gear and catches
by using ‘‘seal bombs’’ in an effort to
disperse sea lions away from fishing
E:\FR\FM\24AUN1.SGM
24AUN1
51230
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Notices
gear. Sound levels produced by seal
bombs are well above levels that are
known to cause Temporary Threshold
Shift (TTS, temporary loss of hearing)
and Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS,
partial or full loss of hearing) in marine
mammals (Wynne 2014). The use of seal
bombs requires appropriate permits
from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives. Seal bombs
may be used as long as such use does
not result in mortality or serious injury
of a marine mammal; however, seal
bombs should not be used on any ESAlisted species (Laws 2015). Although no
studies have been published that
document hearing-impaired sea lions in
the area, this possibility is important to
note as it pertains to mitigation
measures that will be effective for this
project.
Sea lions in the Kodiak harbor area
are habituated to fishing vessels and are
skilled at gaining access to fish. It is
likely that some of the same animals
follow local vessels to the nearby fishing
grounds and back to town. It is also
likely that hearing-impaired or deaf sea
lions are among the sea lions that attend
the seafood processing facility adjacent
to the Pier 1 construction site. It is not
known how a hearing-impaired or deaf
sea lion would respond to typical
mitigation efforts at a construction site
such as ramping up of pile-driving
equipment. It is also unknown whether
a hearing-impaired or deaf sea lion
would avoid pile-driving activity, or
whether such an animal might approach
closely, even within the Level A
harassment zone, without responding to
or being impacted by the noise level. If
it is observed that some sea lions found
within the Level A harassment zone do
not respond to mitigation efforts, these
animals may have previously suffered
injury in the form of PTS. Therefore,
any additional auditory injury
associated with the Pier 1 project would
be unlikely.
Effects on individuals that are taken
by Level B harassment, on the basis of
reports in the literature as well as
monitoring from other similar activities,
will likely be limited to reactions such
as increased swimming speeds,
increased surfacing time, or decreased
foraging (if such activity were occurring)
(e.g., Thorson and Reyff, 2006; Lerma,
2014). Most likely, individuals will
simply move away from the sound
source and be temporarily displaced
from the areas of pile driving, although
even this reaction has been observed
primarily only in association with
impact pile driving. In response to
vibratory driving, pinnipeds (which
may become somewhat habituated to
human activity in industrial or urban
waterways) have been observed to orient
towards and sometimes move towards
the sound. The pile extraction and
driving activities analyzed here are
similar to, or less impactful than,
numerous construction activities
conducted in other similar locations,
which have taken place with no
reported injuries or mortality to marine
mammals, and no known long-term
adverse consequences from behavioral
harassment. Repeated exposures of
individuals to levels of sound that may
cause Level B harassment are unlikely
to result in hearing impairment or to
significantly disrupt foraging behavior.
Thus, even repeated Level B harassment
of some small subset of the overall stock
is unlikely to result in any significant
realized decrease in fitness for the
affected individuals, and thus would
not result in any adverse impact to the
stock as a whole.
In summary, this negligible impact
analysis is founded on the following
factors: (1) The possibility of nonauditory injury, serious injury, or
mortality may reasonably be considered
discountable; (2) the anticipated
incidents of Level B harassment consist
of, at worst, temporary modifications in
behavior and; (3) the presumed efficacy
of the proposed mitigation measures in
reducing the effects of the specified
activity to the level of least practicable
impact. In combination, we believe that
these factors, as well as the available
body of evidence from other similar
activities, demonstrate that the potential
effects of the specified activity will have
only short-term effects on individuals.
The specified activity is not expected to
impact rates of recruitment or survival
and will therefore not result in
population-level impacts.
Based on the analysis contained
herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals
and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the
proposed monitoring and mitigation
measures, NMFS preliminarily finds
that the total marine mammal take from
the DOT&PF’s reconstruction of the Pier
1 Kodiak Ferry Terminal and Dock will
have a negligible impact on the affected
marine mammal species or stocks.
Small Numbers Analysis
Table 7 demonstrates the number of
animals that could be exposed to
received noise levels that could cause
Level A and Level B behavioral
harassment for the proposed work at the
Pier 1 project site. The analyses
provided above represents between
<0.01%–8.1% of the populations of
these stocks that could be affected by
harassment. The numbers of animals
authorized to be taken for all species
would be considered small relative to
the relevant stocks or populations even
if each estimated taking occurred to a
new individual—an extremely unlikely
scenario. For pinnipeds, especially
Steller sea lions, occurring in the
vicinity of Pier 1 there will almost
certainly be some overlap in individuals
present day-to-day, and these takes are
likely to occur only within some small
portion of the overall regional stock.
TABLE 7—ESTIMATED NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGE OF STOCK THAT MAY BE EXPOSED TO LEVEL A AND B HARASSMENT
Proposed
authorized
takes
Species
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Killer Whale (Orcinus orca); Eastern N. Pacific, Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Bering
Seat Transient Stock ................................................................................................................
Harbor Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena); Gulf of Alaska Stock ...................................................
Steller Sea Lion (Eumetopias jubatus); wDPS Stock .................................................................
Harbor Seal (Phoca vitulina richardii); South Kodiak Stock ........................................................
48
40
* 3,290
40
Stock(s)
abundance
estimate
587
31,046
52,200
11,117
Percentage of
total stock
8.1%
<0.01%
6.3
<0.01%
* (Includes 3,260 Level B and 30 Level A takes).
Based on the analysis contained
herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals
and their habitat, and taking into
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Aug 21, 2015
Jkt 235001
consideration the implementation of the
mitigation and monitoring measures,
which are expected to reduce the
number of marine mammals potentially
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
affected by the proposed action, NMFS
preliminarily finds that small numbers
of marine mammals will be taken
E:\FR\FM\24AUN1.SGM
24AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Notices
relative to the populations of the
affected species or stocks.
Impact on Availability of Affected
Species for Taking for Subsistence Uses
Alaska Natives have traditionally
harvested subsistence resources in the
Kodiak area for many hundreds of years,
particularly Steller sea lions and harbor
seals. No traditional subsistence hunting
areas are within the project vicinity,
however; the nearest haulouts for Steller
sea lions and harbor seals are the Long
Island and Cape Chiniak haul-outs and
the Marmot Island rookery, many miles
away. These locations are respectively
4, 12 and 30 nautical miles distant from
the project area. Since all project
activities will take place within the
immediate vicinity of the Pier 1 site, the
project will not have an adverse impact
on the availability of marine mammals
for subsistence use at locations farther
away. No disturbance or displacement
of sea lions or harbor seals from
traditional hunting areas by activities
associated with the Pier 1 project is
expected. No changes to availability of
subsistence resources will result from
Pier 1 project activities.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
There are two marine mammal
species that are listed as endangered
under the ESA with confirmed or
possible occurrence in the study area:
Humpback whale and Southern resident
killer whale. For the purposes of this
IHA, NMFS determined that take of
Southern resident killer whales was
highly unlikely given the rare
occurrence of these animals in the
project area. A similar conclusion was
reached for humpback whales. On
March 18, 2011, NMFS signed a
Biological Opinion concluding that the
proposed action is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
humpback whales and may affect, but is
not likely to adversely affect Southern
resident killer whales.
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)
NMFS is also preparing an
Environmental Assessment (EA) in
accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and
will consider comments submitted in
response to this notice as part of that
process. The EA will be posted at
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
incidental/construction.htm once it is
finalized.
Proposed Incidental Harassment
Authorization
As a result of these preliminary
determinations, we propose to issue an
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Aug 21, 2015
Jkt 235001
IHA to the DOT&PF for the Pier 1
Kodiak Ferry Terminal and Dock
Improvements Project provided the
previously mentioned mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting requirements
are incorporated. The proposed IHA
language is provided next.
1. This Incidental Harassment
Authorization (IHA) is valid from
September 30, 2015 through September
29, 2016.
2. This Authorization is valid only for
in-water construction work associated
with the Pier 1 Kodiak Ferry Terminal
and Dock Improvements Project.
3. General Conditions:
(a) A copy of this IHA must be in the
possession of the DOT&PF, its
designees, and work crew personnel
operating under the authority of this
IHA.
(b) The species authorized for taking
include killer whale (Orcinus orca),
Steller sea lion (Eumatopius jubatus),
harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena),
and harbor seal (Phoca vitulina
richardii).
(c) The taking, by Level B harassment
only, is limited to the species listed in
condition 3(b).
(d) The taking, by Level A harassment
only, is limited Steller sea lions.
(e) The taking by injury (Level A
harassment), serious injury, or death of
any of the species listed in condition
3(b) with the exception of Steller sea
lions or any taking of any other species
of marine mammal is prohibited and
may result in the modification,
suspension, or revocation of this IHA.
(f) The DOT&PF shall conduct
briefings between construction
supervisors and crews, marine mammal
monitoring team, and staff prior to the
start of all in-water pile driving, and
when new personnel join the work, in
order to explain responsibilities,
communication procedures, marine
mammal monitoring protocol, and
operational procedures.
4. Mitigation Measures
The holder of this Authorization is
required to implement the following
mitigation measures:
(a) Time Restriction: For all in-water
pile driving activities, the DOT&PF shall
operate only during daylight hours
when visual monitoring of marine
mammals can be conducted. To
minimize impacts to pink salmon
(Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) fry and coho
salmon (O. kisutch) smolt, all in-water
pile extraction and installation is
planned to be completed by April 30,
2016. If work cannot be completed by
April 30, the DOT&PF must refrain from
impact pile installation without a
bubble curtain from May 1 through June
30 within the 12-hour period beginning
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
51231
daily at the start of civil dawn. Impact
pile installation would be acceptable
without a bubble curtain from May 1
through June 30 in the evenings,
beginning at 12 hours past civil dawn.
(b) Establishment of Level B
Harassment (ZOI)
(i) Before the commencement of inwater pile driving activities, the
DOT&PF shall establish Level B
behavioral harassment ZOI where
received underwater sound pressure
levels (SPLs) are higher than 120 dB
(rms) re 1 mPa for and non-pulse sources
(vibratory hammer). The ZOI delineates
where Level B harassment would occur.
For vibratory driving, the level B
harassment area extends out to 1,150.
This 1,150-meter distance will serve as
a shutdown zone for all other marine
mammals not listed in 3(b). During
impact driving, the Level B harassment
zone shall extend to 225 meters for
animals listed in 3(b). This 225-meter
distance will serve as a shutdown zone
for all other marine mammals not listed
in 3(b).
(c) Establishment of shutdown zone
(i) For impact pile driving activities,
the DOT&PF’s will establish a shutdown
zone. Shutdown zones are intended to
contain the area in which SPLs equal or
exceed the 180/190 dB rms acoustic
injury criteria, with the purpose being to
define an area within which shutdown
of activity would occur upon sighting of
a marine mammal (or in anticipation of
an animal entering the defined area),
thus preventing injury of marine
mammals. A conservative 4-meter
shutdown zone will be in effect for
Steller sea lions and harbor seals. The
shutdown zone for Level A injury to
harbor porpoises and killer whales
would be 15 meters.
(d) The Level A and Level B
harassment zones will be monitored
throughout the time required to install
or extract a pile. If a harbor seal, harbor
porpoise, or killer whale is observed
entering the Level B harassment zone, a
Level B exposure will be recorded and
behaviors documented. That pile
segment will be completed without
cessation, unless the animal approaches
the Level A shutdown zone. Pile
installation or extraction will be halted
immediately before the animal enters
the Level A zone.
(e) Use of Ramp Up/Soft Start
(i) The project will utilize soft start
techniques for all vibratory and impact
pile driving. We require the DOT&PF to
initiate sound from vibratory hammers
for fifteen seconds at reduced energy
followed by a 1-minute waiting period,
with the procedure repeated two
additional times. For impact driving, we
require an initial set of three strikes
E:\FR\FM\24AUN1.SGM
24AUN1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
51232
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Notices
from the impact hammer at reduced
energy, followed by a 1-minute waiting
period, then two subsequent three strike
sets.
(ii) Soft start will be required at the
beginning of each day’s pile driving
work and at any time following a
cessation of pile driving of 20 minutes
or longer.
(iii) If a marine mammal is present
within the shutdown zone, ramping up
will be delayed until the animal(s)
leaves the Level A harassment zone.
Activity will begin only after the MMO
has determined, through sighting, that
the animal(s) has moved outside the
Level A harassment zone.
(iv) If a Steller sea lion, harbor seal,
harbor porpoise, or killer whale is
present in the Level B harassment zone,
ramping up will begin and a Level B
take will be documented. Ramping up
will occur when these species are in the
Level B harassment zone whether they
entered the Level B zone from the Level
A zone, or from outside the project area.
(v) If any marine mammal other than
Steller sea lions, harbor seals, harbor
porpoises, or killer whales is present in
the Level B harassment zone, ramping
up will be delayed until the animal(s)
leaves the zone. Ramping up will begin
only after the Wildlife Observer has
determined, through sighting, that the
animal(s) has moved outside the
harassment zone.
(f) Pile Caps—
(i) Pile caps will be used during all
impact pile-driving activities.
(g) Standard mitigation measures
(i) Conduct briefings between
construction supervisors and crews,
marine mammal monitoring team, and
DOT&PF staff prior to the start of all pile
driving and extraction activity, and
when new personnel join the work, in
order to explain responsibilities,
communication procedures, marine
mammal monitoring protocol, and
operational procedures.
(ii) For in-water heavy machinery
work other than pile driving (e.g.,
standard barges, tug boats, bargemounted excavators, or clamshell
equipment used to place or remove
material), if a marine mammal comes
within 10 meters, operations shall cease
and vessels shall reduce speed to the
minimum level required to maintain
steerage and safe working conditions.
(h) The DOT&PF shall establish
monitoring locations as described
below.
5. Monitoring and Reporting
The holder of this Authorization is
required to report all monitoring
conducted under the IHA within 90
calendar days of the completion of the
marine mammal monitoring
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Aug 21, 2015
Jkt 235001
(a) Visual Marine Mammal
Monitoring and Observation
(i) At least one individual meeting the
minimum qualifications identified in
Appendix A of the application by the
DOT&PF will monitor the shutdown
and Level B harassment zones during
impact and vibratory pile driving.
(ii) During pile driving and extraction
the shutdown zone, as described in 4(b)
will be monitored and maintained. Pile
installation or extraction will not
commence or will be suspended
temporarily if any marine mammals are
observed within or approaching the area
of potential disturbance.
(iii) The area within the Level B
harassment threshold for pile driving
and extraction will be monitored by
observers stationed to provide adequate
view of the harassment zone. Marine
mammal presence within this Level B
harassment zone, if any, will be
monitored. Pile driving activity will not
be stopped if marine mammals are
found to be present. Any marine
mammal documented within the Level
B harassment zone during impact
driving would constitute a Level B take
(harassment), and will be recorded and
reported as such.
(iv) The individuals will scan the
waters within each monitoring zone
activity using binoculars (Vector 10X42
or equivalent), spotting scopes
(Swarovski 20–60 zoom or equivalent),
and visual observation.
(v) If waters exceed a sea-state which
restricts the observers’ ability to make
observations within the marine mammal
buffer zone (the 100 meter radius) (e.g.
excessive wind or fog), impact pile
installation will cease until conditions
allow the resumption of monitoring.
(vi) The waters will be scanned 30
minutes prior to commencing pile
driving at the beginning of each day,
and prior to commencing pile driving
after any stoppage of 20 minutes or
greater. If marine mammals enter or are
observed within the designated marine
mammal shutdown zone during or 20
minutes prior to impact pile driving, the
monitors will notify the on-site
construction manager to not begin until
the animal has moved outside the
designated radius.
(vii) The waters will continue to be
scanned for at least 20 minutes after pile
driving has completed each day,
(b) Data Collection
(i) Observers are required to use
approved data forms. Among other
pieces of information, DOT&PF the
DOT&PF will record detailed
information about any implementation
of shutdowns, including the distance of
animals to the pile and description of
specific actions that ensued and
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
resulting behavior of the animal, if any.
In addition, the DOT&PF will attempt to
distinguish between the number of
individual animals taken and the
number of incidents of take. At a
minimum, the following information be
collected on the sighting forms:
1. Date and time that monitored
activity begins or ends;
2. Construction activities occurring
during each observation period;
3. Weather parameters (e.g., percent
cover, visibility);
4. Water conditions (e.g., sea state,
tide state);
5. Species, numbers, and, if possible,
sex and age class of marine mammals;
6. Description of any observable
marine mammal behavior patterns,
including bearing and direction of travel
and distance from pile driving activity;
7. Distance from pile driving activities
to marine mammals and distance from
the marine mammals to the observation
point;
8. Locations of all marine mammal
observations; and
9. Other human activity in the area.
(c) Reporting Measures
(i) In the unanticipated event that the
specified activity clearly causes the take
of a marine mammal in a manner
prohibited by the IHA, such as an injury
(Level A harassment to animals other
than Steller sea lions), serious injury or
mortality (e.g., ship-strike, gear
interaction, and/or entanglement), the
DOT&PF would immediately cease the
specified activities and immediately
report the incident to the Chief of the
Permits and Conservation Division,
Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,
and the Alaska Regional Stranding
Coordinators. The report would include
the following information:
1. Time, date, and location (latitude/
longitude) of the incident;
2. Name and type of vessel involved;
3. Vessel’s speed during and leading
up to the incident;
4. Description of the incident;
5. Status of all sound source use in
the 24 hours preceding the incident;
6. Water depth;
7. Environmental conditions (e.g.,
wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea
state, cloud cover, and visibility);
8. Description of all marine mammal
observations in the 24 hours preceding
the incident;
9. Species identification or
description of the animal(s) involved;
10. Fate of the animal(s); and
11. Photographs or video footage of
the animal(s) (if equipment is available).
(ii) Activities would not resume until
NMFS is able to review the
circumstances of the prohibited take.
NMFS would work with the DOT&PF to
E:\FR\FM\24AUN1.SGM
24AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Notices
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
determine what is necessary to
minimize the likelihood of further
prohibited take and ensure MMPA
compliance. The DOT&PF would not be
able to resume their activities until
notified by NMFS via letter, email, or
telephone.
(iii) In the event that the DOT&PF
discovers an injured or dead marine
mammal, and the lead MMO determines
that the cause of the injury or death is
unknown and the death is relatively
recent (i.e., in less than a moderate state
of decomposition as described in the
next paragraph), the DOT&PF would
immediately report the incident to the
Chief of the Permits and Conservation
Division, Office of Protected Resources,
NMFS, and the Alaska Stranding
Hotline and/or by email to the Alaska
Regional Stranding Coordinators. The
report would include the same
information identified in the paragraph
above. Activities would be able to
continue while NMFS reviews the
circumstances of the incident. NMFS
would work with the DOT&PF to
determine whether modifications in the
activities are appropriate.
(iv) In the event that the DOT&PF
discovers an injured or dead marine
mammal, and the lead MMO determines
that the injury or death is not associated
with or related to the activities
authorized in the IHA (e.g., previously
wounded animal, carcass with moderate
to advanced decomposition, or
scavenger damage), the DOT&PF would
report the incident to the Chief of the
Permits and Conservation Division,
Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,
and the NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline
and/or by email to the Alaska Regional
Stranding Coordinator, within 24 hours
of the discovery. The DOT&PF would
provide photographs or video footage (if
available) or other documentation of the
stranded animal sighting to NMFS and
the Marine Mammal Stranding Network.
6. This Authorization may be
modified, suspended or withdrawn if
the holder fails to abide by the
conditions prescribed herein, or if
NMFS determines the authorized taking
is having more than a negligible impact
on the species or stock of affected
marine mammals.
Request for Public Comments
NMFS requests comment on our
analysis, the draft authorization, and
any other aspect of the Notice of
Proposed IHA for the DOT&PF’s Kodiak
Ferry Terminal and Dock Improvements
Project. Please include with your
comments any supporting data or
literature citations to help inform our
final decision on DOT&PF’s request for
an MMPA authorization.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Aug 21, 2015
Jkt 235001
51233
Dated: August 18, 2015.
Perry Gayaldo,
Deputy Director, Office of Protected
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
Live Stream Broadcast
[FR Doc. 2015–20828 Filed 8–21–15; 8:45 am]
The general session of the Pacific
Fishery Management Council will be
streamed live on the internet beginning
at 9 a.m. Pacific Time (PT) on Friday,
September 11, 2015 through
Wednesday, September 16, 2015. The
broadcast will end daily at 6 p.m. PT or
when business for the day is complete.
Only the audio portion, and portions of
the presentations displayed on the
screen at the Council meeting, will be
broadcast. The audio portion is listenonly; you will be unable to speak to the
Council via the broadcast. Join the
meeting by visiting this link http://
www.gotomeeting.com/online/webinar/
join-webinar, enter the Webinar ID for
this meeting, which is 141–257–515,
and enter your email address as
required. It is recommended that you
use a computer headset as GoToMeeting
allows you to listen to the meeting using
your computer headset and speakers. If
you do not have a headset and speakers,
you may use your telephone for the
audio portion of the meeting by dialing
this toll number 1–702–489–0008 (not a
toll free number); entering the phone
audio access code 418–407–809; and
then entering your Audio Pin which
will be shown to you after joining the
webinar. The webinar is broadcast in
listen-only mode.
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XE127
Pacific Fishery Management Council;
Public Meetings
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of public meetings.
AGENCY:
The Pacific Fishery
Management Council (Pacific Council)
and its advisory entities will hold an 8day public meeting to consider actions
affecting West Coast fisheries in the
exclusive economic zone.
DATES: Advisory entities to the Pacific
Council will meet beginning at 8 a.m.
Wednesday, September 9, 2015 through
Wednesday, September 16, 2015 as
listed in the Schedule of Ancillary
Meetings. The Pacific Council general
session will begin on Friday, September
11, 2015 at 8 a.m., reconvening each day
through Wednesday, September 16,
2015. All meetings are open to the
public, except a closed session will be
held at 8 a.m. on Friday, September 11
to address litigation and personnel
matters. The Pacific Council will meet
as late as necessary each day to
complete its scheduled business.
ADDRESSES: Meetings of the Council and
its advisory entities will be held at the
Doubletree by Hilton Sacramento, 2001
Point West Way, Sacramento, CA 95815;
telephone: (916) 929–8855. Instructions
for attending the meeting via live stream
broadcast are given under
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, below.
Council address: Pacific Fishery
Management Council, 7700 NE.
Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland,
OR 97220.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.
Donald O. McIsaac, Executive Director,
Pacific Fishery Management Council;
telephone: (503) 820–2280 or (866) 806–
7204 toll free. Access the Pacific
Council Web site, http://
www.pcouncil.org/council-operations/
council-meetings/current-meeting/ for
the current meeting location, proposed
agenda, and meeting briefing materials.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Friday, September 11, 2015 Through
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
Agenda
Friday, September 11, 2015 Through
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
The following items are on the Pacific
Council agenda, but not necessarily in
this order. Agenda items noted as
‘‘(Final Action)’’ refer to actions
requiring the Council to transmit a
proposed fishery management plan,
proposed plan amendment, or proposed
regulations to the Secretary of
Commerce, under Sections 304 or 305 of
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act.
Additional detail on agenda items,
Council action, and meeting rooms, is
described in Agenda Item A.5, Proposed
Council Meeting Agenda, and will be in
the advance September 2015 briefing
materials and posted on the Council
Web site http://www.pcouncil.org/
council-operations/council-meetings/
current-briefing-book/.
A. Call to Order
1. Opening Remarks
2. Council Member Appointments
3. Roll Call
4. Executive Director’s Report
5. Approve Agenda
B. Open Comment Period
E:\FR\FM\24AUN1.SGM
24AUN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 163 (Monday, August 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51211-51233]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20828]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XE069
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Kodiak Ferry Terminal and Dock
Improvements Project
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request
for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request from the Alaska Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) for authorization to take
marine mammals incidental to reconstructing the existing ferry terminal
at Pier 1 in Kodiak, Alaska, referred to as the Kodiak Ferry Terminal
and Dock Improvements project (State Project Number 68938). The DOT&PF
requests that the incidental harassment authorization (IHA) be valid
for 1 year, from September 30, 2015 through September 29, 2016.
Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting
comments on its proposal to issue an authorization to the DOT&PF
incidentally take, by harassment, small numbers of marine mammals for
its reconstruction of the ferry terminal at Pier 1 in Kodiak, AK.
DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than
September 23, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the application should be addressed to Jolie
Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. Physical comments should
be sent to 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 and
electronic comments should be sent to ITP.Pauline@noaa.gov.
Instructions: NMFS is not responsible for comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the
end of the comment period. Comments received electronically, including
all attachments, must not exceed a 25-megabyte file size. Attachments
to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel or
Adobe PDF file formats only. All comments received are a part of the
public record and will generally be posted to the Internet at http://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
[[Page 51212]]
pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm without change. All personal
identifying information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily submitted by
the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential
business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Pauline, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability
An electronic copy of the DOT&PFs application and supporting
documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document,
may be obtained by visiting the Internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm. In case of problems accessing
these documents, please call the contact listed above.
Background
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.)
direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the
incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine
mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than
commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain
findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking
is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is
provided to the public for review.
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS
finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or
stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where
relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings
are set forth. NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103
as ``an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be
reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely
affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival.''
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the
MMPA defines ``harassment'' as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or
annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or
marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the
potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild
by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not
limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or
sheltering [Level B harassment].
Summary of Request
On March 27, 2015, NMFS received an application from the DOT&PF for
the taking of marine mammal incidental to reconstructing the existing
ferry terminal at Pier 1 in Kodiak, Alaska, referred to as the Kodiak
Ferry Terminal and Dock Improvements project (State Project Number
68938). On June 18, 2015 NMFS received a revised application. NMFS
determined that the application was adequate and complete on June 25,
2015. DOT&PF proposes to conduct in-water work that may incidentally
harass marine mammals (i.e., pile driving and removal). This IHA would
be valid from September 30, 2015 through September 29, 2016.
Proposed activities included as part of the Kodiak Ferry Terminal
and Dock Improvements project (Pier 1 project) with potential to affect
marine mammals include vibratory and impact pile-driving operations and
use of a down-hole drill/hammer to install piles in bedrock.
Species with the expected potential to be present during the
project timeframe include killer whale (Orcinus orca), Steller sea lion
(Eumatopius jubatus), harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), and harbor
seal (Phoca vitulina richardii).
Description of the Specified Activity
Overview
DOT&PF is seeking an IHA for work that includes removal of the old
timber dock and piles and installation of the new dock, including
mooring and fender systems. The existing decking, piles, and other dock
materials will be removed. Temporary steel H-piles will be installed to
support temporary false work structures (i.e., templates). The new dock
will be supported by steel piles, and dock fenders will include steel
piles and timber piles. Note that these estimates are the number of
days when each activity may occur at some point during the day, and
that the number of days is not additive.
Dates and Duration
Pile installation and extraction associated with the Pier 1 project
will begin no sooner than September 30, 2015 and will be completed no
later than September 29, 2016 (1 year following IHA issuance). To
minimize impacts to pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) fry and coho
salmon (O. kisutch) smolt, all in-water pile extraction and
installation is planned to be completed by April 30, 2016. If work
cannot be completed by April 30, the Alaska Department of Fish & Game
(ADF&G) recommended that the DOT&PF refrain from impact pile
installation without a bubble curtain from May 1 through June 30 within
the 12-hour period beginning daily at the start of civil dawn (Marie
2015). ADF&G stated that this is the daily time period when the
majority of juvenile salmon are moving through the project area, and a
12-hour quiet period may protect migrating juvenile salmon from
excessive noise (Frost 2015). Impact pile installation would be
acceptable without a bubble curtain from May 1 through June 30 in the
evenings, beginning at 12 hours past civil dawn (Marie 2015). At this
time, DOT&PF does not propose using bubble curtains. However, it is
possible that in-water work may extend past April 30 in compliance with
the mitigation for salmon as recommended by ADF&G.
Removal of existing timber piles, installation of temporary piles
and new permanent piles, and removal of temporary piles are expected to
occur over approximately 120 working days over a period of 4 to 6
months. This IHA requests authorization for up to 1 year of
construction activities in case unforeseen construction delays occur.
Pile extraction, pile driving, and drilling will occur intermittently
over the work period, for anything from minutes to hours at a time
(Table 1-1 in the application). The proposed Pier 1 project will
require an estimated 120 days total of pile extraction and
installation, including 80 days of vibratory extraction and
installation, 60 days of down-hole drilling, and 22 days of impact
hammering. Note that these days are not additive. Timing will vary
based on the weather, delays, substrate type (the rock is layered and
is of varying hardness across the site, so some holes will be drilled
quickly and others may take longer), and other factors. A production
rate of two permanent piles per day, on days when pile installation
occurs, is considered typical for a project of this type.
A 25 percent contingency has been added to the estimate of pile
extraction and driving time to account for unknown substrate conditions
(See Table 1-1 in the application). Therefore, the project may require
approximately 614 hours of pile extraction or driving. The days for
pile driving and extraction will not always be successive, but will be
staggered over a 4- to 6-month period, depending on weather,
construction and mechanical delays, marine mammal shutdowns, and other
[[Page 51213]]
potential delays and logistical constraints. The number of hours of
pile driving within any single day will vary.
Specified Geographic Region
The Kodiak Ferry Terminal and Dock at Pier 1 is located in the City
of Kodiak, Alaska, at 57[deg]47'12.78'' N, 152[deg]24'09.73'' W, on the
northeastern corner of Kodiak Island, in the Gulf of Alaska (See Figure
1-1 in the Application). Pier 1 is an active ferry terminal and multi-
use dock located in Near Island Channel, which separates downtown
Kodiak from Near Island (Figure 1-2). The channel is approximately 200
meters (656 feet) wide in the project area. Pier 1 is situated between
a marine fuel service floating dock to the northeast (Petro Marine
Services) and a pile-supported dock owned by a shore-based seafood
processor to the southwest. Pier 1 is separated from the seafood
processing plant dock by only about 15 meters (50 feet; Figure 1-3).
Detailed Description of Activities
The proposed action for this IHA request includes removal of the
old timber dock and piles and installation of the new dock, including
mooring and fender systems. The existing decking, piles, and other dock
materials will be removed. Temporary steel H-piles will be installed to
support temporary false work structures (i.e., templates). The new dock
will be supported by steel piles, and dock fenders will include steel
piles and timber piles. The proposed Pier 1 project will require an
estimated 120 days total of pile extraction and installation, including
80 days of vibratory extraction and installation, 60 days of down-hole
drilling, and 22 days of impact hammering. Note that these estimates
are the number of days when each activity may occur at some point
during the day, and that the number of days is not additive. The total
hours of pile installation for each activity is estimated in more
detail later in this section.
The existing dock consists of approximately 156 vertical, 13-inch-
diameter creosote-treated timber piles, 40 timber battered piles, and
14 16-inch-diameter steel fender piles. All piles, decking, and other
existing dock materials will be removed. The exact method for pile
extraction will be determined by the contractor. It is anticipated that
when possible, existing piles will be extracted by directly lifting
them with a crane. A vibratory hammer will be used only if necessary to
extract piles that cannot be directly lifted. Removal of each old pile
is estimated to require 5 minutes of vibratory hammer use. Under the
worst-case scenario, if all old piles were removed by using the
vibratory hammer, it would require a total time of about 17.5 hours
(See Table 1-1 in the application). If the piles break below the
waterline, the pile stubs will be removed with a clamshell bucket.
The exact means and method for pile installation will be determined
by the contractor; however, a few options are available within a
general framework. Temporary steel pipe or H-piles will be installed as
part of a template to ensure proper placement and alignment during
driving of the permanent steel piles. Temporary piles will be driven
with a vibratory hammer 10-30 feet through the overburden sediment
layer but are not expected to penetrate into the bedrock. A vibratory
hammer will be used to remove the temporary piles, which will then be
reinstalled at a new location. Individual temporary piles will be
driven and removed an estimated 88 times. It is estimated that it will
take 10 minutes of vibratory pile driving per temporary pile for
installation and 5 minutes each for extraction, for a total of 15
minutes of vibratory pile driving per temporary pile. For 88 temporary
piles, this is an estimated 22 hours of total time using active
vibratory equipment.
The new terminal and dock will be supported by approximately 88
round, 24-inch-diameter steel piles. The 24-inch steel piles will be
driven 10-30 feet through the sediment layer and 15 feet into the
bedrock. Dock fenders will be supported atop 10 round, 18-inch-diameter
steel piles. In addition, eight round, 16-inch timber piles, which are
somewhat variable in size from about 16 inches at the butt (top) to
about 12 inches at the tip (bottom), will be installed as fender piles
along the north side of the dock. Both the steel and timber fender
piles will be driven with a vibratory hammer approximately 22 feet
embedment, or to refusal.
The sequence for installing the permanent 24-inch piles begins with
insertion through overlying sediment with a vibratory hammer for about
10 minutes per pile. A hole will then be drilled in the underlying
bedrock by using a down-hole drill/hammer. A down-hole hammer is a
drill bit that drills through the sediment and a pulse mechanism that
functions at the bottom of the hole, using a pulsing bit to break up
the harder materials or rock to allow removal of the fragments and
insertion of the pile. The head extends so that the drilling takes
place below the pile. Drill cuttings are expelled from the top of the
pile as dust or mud. It is estimated that drilling piles through the
layered bedrock will take about 5 hours per pile. Then, about five
blows of an impact hammer will be used to confirm that piles are set
into bedrock (proofed), for a maximum time expected of 1 minute of
impact hammering per pile. When the impact hammer is employed for
proofing, a pile cap or cushion will be placed between the impact
hammer and the pile.
All permanent 18-inch steel piles and timber piles will be driven
into the marine sediment by using a vibratory hammer. It is anticipated
to take about 10 minutes of vibratory driving to install each permanent
18-inch steel and timber pile.
Table 1-1 in the application illustrates that the project will
require an estimated 60 hours of vibratory hammer time, 440 hours of
down-hole drilling time, and 2 hours of impact hammer time. DOT&PF has
conservatively added a contingency of 25% to the total hours required
resulting in 75 hours of vibratory hammer time, 550 hours of down-hole
drilling time, and 3 hours of impact hammer time.
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity
Marine waters near Kodiak Island support many species of marine
mammals, including pinnipeds and cetaceans; however, the number of
species regularly occurring near the project area is limited. Steller
sea lions are the most common marine mammals in the project area and
are part of the western Distinct Population Segment (wDPS) that is
listed as Endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Harbor
seals (Phoca vitulina), harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena), and
killer whales (Orcinus orca) may also occur in the project area, but
far less frequently and in lower abundance than Steller sea lions.
Humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae), fin whales (Balaenoptera
physalus), and gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus) occur in the
nearshore waters around Kodiak Island), but are not expected to be
found near the project area because of the narrow channel and boat
traffic. Dall's porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli) generally inhabit more
offshore habitats than the Near Island channel. The relatively large
numbers of Steller sea lions in the area may serve as an additional
deterrent for some marine mammals. This IHA application is limited to
the species shown in Table 1 and will assess potential impacts to
Steller sea lions, harbor seals, harbor porpoises, and killer whales.
In the species accounts provided here, we offer a brief
introduction to the species and relevant stock as well as available
information regarding
[[Page 51214]]
population trends and threats, and describe any information regarding
local occurrence.
Table 1--Marine Mammal Species Potentially Present in the Project Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stock(s)
Species abundance ESA * Status MMPA ** Status Frequency of
estimate \1\ occurrence
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Killer Whale (Orcinus orca) 2,347 ................... Non-depleted....... Occasional.
Eastern N. Pacific, Alaska
Resident Stock.
Killer Whale (Orcinus orca) 587 ................... Non-depleted....... Occasional.
Eastern N. Pacific, Gulf of
Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and
Bering Seat Transient Stock.
Harbor Porpoise (Phocoena 31,046 ................... Non-depleted and Occasional.
phocoena) Gulf of Alaska Stock. Strategic.
Steller Sea Lion (Eumetopias 52,200 Endangered......... Depleted and Common.
jubatus) wDPS Stock. Strategic.
Harbor Seal (Phoca vitulina 11,117 ................... Non-depleted....... Occasional.
richardii) South Kodiak Stock.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NOAA/NMFS 2014 marine mammal stock assessment reports at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/species.htm.
* ESA = Endangered Species Act.
** MMPA = Marine Mammal Protection Act.
Cetaceans
Killer Whale
Killer whales have been observed in all oceans and seas of the
world, but the highest densities occur in colder and more productive
waters found at high latitudes (NOAA 2015). Killer whales are found
throughout the North Pacific, and occur along the entire Alaska coast,
in British Columbia and Washington inland waterways, and along the
outer coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California (NOAA 2015).
Based on data regarding association patterns, acoustics, movements,
and genetic differences, eight killer whale stocks are now recognized
within the Pacific U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone, seven of which occur
in Alaska: (1) The Alaska Resident stock; (2) the Northern Resident
stock; (3) the Southern Resident stock; (4) the Gulf of Alaska,
Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea Transient stock; (5) the AT1 Transient
stock; (6) the West Coast transient stock, occurring from California
through southeastern Alaska; and (7) the Offshore stock. Only the
Alaska Resident stock and the Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and
Bering Sea Transient stock are considered in this application because
other stocks occur outside the geographic area under consideration.
The Alaska Resident stock occurs from southeastern Alaska to the
Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea. Although the Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian
Islands, and Bering Sea Transient stock occupies a range that includes
all of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone in Alaska, few individuals have
been seen in southeastern Alaska. The transient stock occurs primarily
from Prince William Sound through the Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea.
The Alaska Resident stock of killer whales is currently estimated
at 2,347 individuals, and the estimate of the Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian
Islands, and Bering Sea Transient stock is 587 individuals (Allen and
Angliss 2013). The Gulf of Alaska component of the transient stock is
estimated to include 136 of the 587 individuals. The abundance estimate
for the Alaska Resident stock is likely underestimated because
researchers continue to encounter new whales in the Gulf of Alaska and
western Alaskan waters. At present, reliable data on trends in
population abundance for both stocks are unavailable.
Transient killer whales are seen periodically in waters of Kodiak
Harbor, with photo-documentation since at least 1993 (Kodiak Seafood
and Marine Science Center 2015). One pod known to visit Kodiak Harbor
includes an adult female and adult male that have distinctive dorsal
fins that make repeated recognition possible. This, as well as their
easy visibility from shore, has led to their ``popularity'' in Kodiak,
where their presence is often announced on public radio. They have been
repeatedly observed and photographed attacking Steller sea lions.
The Kodiak killer whales appear to specialize in preying on Steller
sea lions commonly found near Kodiak's processing plants, fishing
vessels, and docks. This pod kills and consumes at least four to six
Steller sea lions per year from the Kodiak harbor area, primarily from
February through May (Kodiak Seafood and Marine Science Center 2015,
Wynne 2015b). Further information on the biology and local distribution
of these species can be found in the DOT&PF application available
online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm and the NMFS Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports,
which may be found at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/.
Harbor Porpoise
The harbor porpoise inhabits temporal, subarctic, and arctic
waters. In the eastern North Pacific, harbor porpoises range from Point
Barrow, Alaska, to Point Conception, California. Harbor porpoise
primarily frequent coastal waters and occur most frequently in waters
less than 100 m deep (Hobbs and Waite 2010). They may occasionally be
found in deeper offshore waters.
In Alaska, harbor porpoises are currently divided into three
stocks, based primarily on geography. These are the Bering Sea stock,
the Southeast Alaska stock, and the Gulf of Alaska stock. (Allen and
Angliss 2014). Only the Gulf of Alaska stock is considered in this
application because the other stocks are not found in the geographic
area under consideration.
Harbor porpoises are neither designated as depleted under the MMPA
nor listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. Because the most
recent abundance estimate is 14 years old and information on incidental
harbor porpoise mortality in commercial fisheries is not well
understood, the Gulf of Alaska stock of harbor porpoise is classified
as strategic. Population trends and status of this stock relative to
optimum sustainable population size are currently unknown. The Gulf of
Alaska stock is currently estimated at 31,046 individuals (Allen and
Angliss 2013). No reliable information is available to determine trends
in abundance.
[[Page 51215]]
According to the online database, Ocean Biogeographic Information
System, Spatial Ecological Analysis of Megavertebrate Populations
(Halpin 2009 at OBIS-SEAMAP 2015), West Coast populations have more
restricted movements and do not migrate as much as East Coast
populations. Most harbor porpoise groups are small, generally
consisting of less than five or six individuals, though for feeding or
migration they may aggregate into large, loose groups of 50 to several
hundred animals.
Harbor porpoises commonly frequent Kodiak's nearshore waters, but
are rarely if ever noted in the Kodiak channel (K. Wynne, pers. comm.).
Harbor porpoises are expected to be encountered rarely in the project
area, although no data exist to quantify harbor porpoise attendance.
Pinnipeds
Steller Sea Lion
The Steller sea lion is a pinniped and the largest of the eared
seals. Steller sea lion populations that primarily occur west of
144[deg] W (Cape Suckling, Alaska) comprise the western Distinct
Population Segment (wDPS). Only the wDPS is considered in this
application because the eastern DPS (eDPS) occurs outside the
geographic area under consideration. Steller sea lions were listed as
threatened range-wide under the ESA on November 26, 1990 (55 FR 49204).
Steller sea lions were subsequently partitioned into the western and
eastern DPSs in 1997 (Allen and Angliss 2010), with the wDPS being
listed as endangered under the ESA and the eDPS remaining classified as
threatened (62 FR 24345) until it was delisted in November 2013.
On August 27, 1993, NMFS published a final rule designating
critical habitat for the Steller sea lion as a 20 nautical mile buffer
around all major haul-outs and rookeries, as well as associated
terrestrial, air and aquatic zones, and three large offshore foraging
areas (50 CFR 226.202)
The range of the Steller sea lion includes the North Pacific Ocean
rim from California to northern Japan. Steller sea lions forage in
nearshore and pelagic waters where they are opportunistic predators.
They feed primarily on a wide variety of fishes and cephalopods.
Steller sea lions use terrestrial haulout sites to rest and take
refuge. They also gather on well-defined, traditionally used rookeries
to pup and breed. These habitats are typically gravel, rocky, or sand
beaches; ledges; or rocky reefs (Allen and Angliss, 2013).
Steller sea lions have a worldwide population estimated at 120,000
to 140,000 animals, with approximately 93,000 in Alaska. The most
recent comprehensive estimate (pups and non-pups) for abundance of the
wDPS in Alaska is 52,209 sea lions, based on aerial surveys of non-pups
conducted in June and July 2008-2011 and aerial and ground-based pup
counts conducted in June and July 2009-2011 (Allen and Angliss 2014).
The wDPS of Steller sea lions declined approximately 75 percent
from 1976 to 1990. Factors that may have contributed to this decline
include (1) incidental take in fisheries, (2) legal and illegal
shooting, (3) predation, (4) contaminants, (5) disease, and (6) climate
change. Non-pup Steller sea lion counts at trend sites in the wDPS
increased 11 percent during 2000-2004. These counts were the first
region-wide increases for the wDPS since standardized surveys began in
the 1970s, and were due to increased or stable counts in all regions
except the western Aleutian Islands. During 2004-2008, western Alaska
non-pup counts increased only 3 percent; eastern Gulf of Alaska (Prince
William Sound area) counts were higher; counts from the Kenai Peninsula
through Kiska Island, including Kodiak Island, were stable; and western
Aleutian counts continued to decline (Allen and Angliss 2010).
Steller sea lions are the most obvious and abundant marine mammals
in the project area. The major natural Steller sea lion haulouts
closest to the project area are located on Long Island and Cape
Chiniak, which are approximately 4.6 nautical miles (8.5 kilometers)
and 13.8 nautical miles (25.6 kilometers) away from the project site,
respectively. Annual counts averaged 33 animals on Long Island from
2008 through 2010, and 119 animals at Cape Chiniak during the same time
period (Table 4-1). The closest rookery is located on Marmot Island,
approximately 30 nautical miles (55.5 kilometers) from the project
site, which had average annual counts of 656 animals from 2008 through
2010 (as cited in NMFS 2013).
Many individual sea lions have become habituated to human activity
in the Kodiak harbor area and utilize a man-made haulout float called
Dog Bay float located in St. Herman Harbor, about 1,300 meters (4,300
feet) from the project site (See Figure 1-2; Figure 3-1 in the
application). This is not a federally recognized haulout and is not
considered part of sea lion critical habitat. Critical habitat is
associated with breeding and haulout areas in Alaska, California, and
Oregon (NMFS 1993). Steller sea lion critical habitat is defined by a
20-nautical-mile (37-km) radius (straight line distance) encircling a
major haulout or rookery. The project area occurs within critical
habitat for two major haulouts, Long Island and Cape Chiniak, described
above. A section from an old floating breakwater, the float was
relocated to Dog Bay in the year 2000 and intended to serve as a
dedicated sea lion haulout. It serves its purpose of reducing sea lion-
human conflicts in Kodiak's docks and harbors by providing an
undisturbed haulout location and reducing the numbers of sea lions that
haul out on vessel moorage floats.
Counts of sea lions hauled out on the Dog Bay float provide an
index of the number of Steller sea lions in the harbor area. Because
this float is not considered an official haulout by NMFS, few
standardized surveys to count sea lions have been conducted (Wynne
2015a). Surveys from 2004 through 2006 indicated peak winter (October-
April) counts ranging from 27 to 33 animals (Wynn et al. 2011). Counts
from February 2015 during a site visit by HDR biologists ranged from
approximately 28 to 45 sea lions on the float. More than 100 sea lions
were counted on the Dog Bay float at times in spring 2015, although the
mean number was much smaller (Wynne 2015b).
Abundant and predictable sources of food for sea lions in the
Kodiak area include fishing gear, fishing boats and tenders, and the
many seafood processing facilities that accept transfers of fish from
offloading vessels. Sea lions have become accustomed to depredating
fishing gear and raiding fishing vessels during fishing and offloading
and they follow potential sources of food around the harbors and docks,
waiting for opportunities to feed. When vessels are offloading fish at
the docks of processing facilities, the sea lions rear out of the water
to look over the gunnels for fish on the deck; if the vessel is a stern
trawler, they charge up the stern ramp or codend to gain access to the
deck (Speckman 2015; Ward 2015; Wynne 2015a). Sea lions have killed
dogs and have dragged humans into the water (Wynne 2015a).
The number of sea lions in the immediate project area varies
depending on the season and presence of commercial fishing vessels
unloading their catch at the seafood processing plant dock immediately
adjacent to Pier 1. During the February 2015 site visit by HDR
biologists, from zero up to about 25 sea lions were seen at one time in
the Pier 1 project area. About 22 of those sea lions were subadults
that were clearly foraging on schooling fishes in the area and were not
interacting with the
[[Page 51216]]
fishing vessels offloading at the seafood processing plant at the time.
The stern trawler offloading at the processing plant dock during this
period was attended by three mature bull sea lions, which constantly
swam back and forth behind the stern watching for an opportunity to
gain access.
At least four other seafood processing facilities are present in
Kodiak and operate concurrently with the one located next to Pier 1.
All are visited by sea lions looking for food, and all are successfully
raided by sea lions with regularity (Wynne 2015a). Sea lions also
follow and raid fishing vessels. The seafood processing facility
adjacent to the Pier 1 project site is therefore not the only source of
food for Kodiak sea lions that inhabit the harbor area. Furthermore,
sea lions in a more ``natural'' situation do not generally eat every
day, but tend to forage every 1-2 days and return to haulouts to rest
between foraging trips (Merrick and Loughlin 1997; Rehburg et al.
2009). The foraging habits of sea lions using the Dog Bay float and
Kodiak harbor area are not documented, but it is reasonable to assume
that, given the abundance of readily available food, not every sea lion
in the area visits the seafood processing plant adjacent to Pier 1
every day. Based on numbers at the Dog Bay float and sea lion behavior,
it is estimated that about 40 unique individual sea lions likely pass
by the project site each day (Speckman 2015; Ward 2015; Wynne 2015a).
Sea lions in the Kodiak harbor area are habituated to fishing vessels
and are skilled at gaining access to fish. It is likely that some of
the same animals follow local vessels to the nearby fishing grounds and
back to town. It is also likely that hearing-impaired or deaf sea lions
are among the sea lions that attend the seafood processing facility
adjacent to the Pier 1 construction site. It is not known how a
hearing-impaired or deaf sea lion would respond to typical mitigation
efforts at a construction site such as ramping up of pile-driving
equipment. It is also unknown whether a hearing-impaired or deaf sea
lion would avoid pile-driving activity, or whether such an animal might
approach closely, even within the Level A harassment zone, without
responding to or being impacted by the noise level.
Harbor Seal
Harbor seals range from Baja California north along the west coasts
of Washington, Oregon, California, British Columbia, and Southeast
Alaska; west through the Gulf of Alaska, Prince William Sound, and the
Aleutian Islands; and north in the Bering Sea to Cape Newenham and the
Pribilof Islands. Distribution of the South Kodiak stock extends from
East Cape (northeast coast of Kodiak Island) south to South Cape
(Chirikof Island), including Tugidak Island, and up the southwest coast
of Kodiak Island to Middle Cape.
In 2010, harbor seals in Alaska were partitioned into 12 separate
stocks based largely on genetic structure (Allen and Angliss 2010).
Only the South Kodiak stock is considered in this application because
other stocks occur outside the geographic area under consideration.
The current statewide abundance estimate for Alaskan harbor seals
is 152,602, based on aerial survey data collected during 1998-2007. The
abundance estimate for the South Kodiak stock is 11,117 (Allen and
Angliss 2010). Harbor seals have declined dramatically in some parts of
their range over the past few decades, while in other parts their
numbers have increased or remained stable over similar time periods.
A significant portion of the harbor seal population within the
South Kodiak stock is located at and around Tugidak Island off the
southwest of Kodiak Island. Sharp declines in the number of seals
present on Tugidak were observed between 1976 and 1998. Although the
number of seals on Tugidak Island has stabilized and shows some
evidence of increase since the decline, the population in 2000 remained
reduced by 80 percent compared to the levels in the 1970s (Jemison et
al. 2006). The current population trend for this stock is unknown.
Harbor seals haul out on rocks, reefs, beaches, and drifting
glacial ice (Allen and Angliss 2014). They are non-migratory; their
local movements are associated with tides, weather, season, food
availability, and reproduction, as well as sex and age class (Allen and
Angliss 2014; Boveng et al. 2012; Lowry et al. 2001; Swain et al.
1996).
Although the number of harbor seals on eastern Kodiak haulouts has
been increasing steadily since the early 1990s (Kodiak Seafood and
Marine Science Center 2015), sightings are rare in the project area.
Several harbor seals tagged at Uganik Bay (Northwest Kodiak Island)
dispersed as far north as Anchorage and as far south as Chignik, but
none were found near Kodiak (Kodiak Seafood and Marine Science Center
2015). Harbor seals are expected to be encountered occasionally in the
project area, although no data exist to quantify harbor seal
attendance.
Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals and Their
Habitat
This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that
stressors, (e.g. pile driving,) and potential mitigation activities,
associated with the reconstruction of the Pier 1 Kodiak Ferry Terminal
and Dock may impact marine mammals and their habitat. The Estimated
Take by Incidental Harassment section later in this document will
include an analysis of the number of individuals that are expected to
be taken by this activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis section will
include the analysis of how this specific activity will impact marine
mammals and will consider the content of this section, the Estimated
Take by Incidental Harassment section, and the Proposed Mitigation
section to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of this
activity on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and
from that on the affected marine mammal populations or stocks. In the
following discussion, we provide general background information on
sound and marine mammal hearing before considering potential effects to
marine mammals from sound produced by pile extraction, vibratory pile
driving, impact pile driving and down-hole drilling.
Description of Sound Sources
Sound travels in waves, the basic components of which are
frequency, wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. Frequency is the number
of pressure waves that pass by a reference point per unit of time and
is measured in hertz (Hz) or cycles per second. Wavelength is the
distance between two peaks of a sound wave; lower frequency sounds have
longer wavelengths than higher frequency sounds and attenuate
(decrease) more rapidly in shallower water. Amplitude is the height of
the sound pressure wave or the `loudness' of a sound and is typically
measured using the decibel (dB) scale. A dB is the ratio between a
measured pressure (with sound) and a reference pressure (sound at a
constant pressure, established by scientific standards). It is a
logarithmic unit that accounts for large variations in amplitude;
therefore, relatively small changes in dB ratings correspond to large
changes in sound pressure. When referring to sound pressure levels
(SPLs; the sound force per unit area), sound is referenced in the
context of underwater sound pressure to 1 microPascal ([mu]Pa). One
pascal is the pressure resulting from a force of one newton exerted
over an area of one square meter. The source
[[Page 51217]]
level (SL) represents the sound level at a distance of 1 m from the
source (referenced to 1 [mu]Pa). The received level is the sound level
at the listener's position. Note that all underwater sound levels in
this document are referenced to a pressure of 1 [mu]Pa and all airborne
sound levels in this document are referenced to a pressure of 20
[mu]Pa.
Root mean square (rms) is the quadratic mean sound pressure over
the duration of an impulse. Rms is calculated by squaring all of the
sound amplitudes, averaging the squares, and then taking the square
root of the average (Urick, 1983). Rms accounts for both positive and
negative values; squaring the pressures makes all values positive so
that they may be accounted for in the summation of pressure levels
(Hastings and Popper, 2005). This measurement is often used in the
context of discussing behavioral effects, in part because behavioral
effects, which often result from auditory cues, may be better expressed
through averaged units than by peak pressures.
When underwater objects vibrate or activity occurs, sound-pressure
waves are created. These waves alternately compress and decompress the
water as the sound wave travels. Underwater sound waves radiate in all
directions away from the source (similar to ripples on the surface of a
pond), except in cases where the source is directional. The
compressions and decompressions associated with sound waves are
detected as changes in pressure by aquatic life and man-made sound
receptors such as hydrophones.
Even in the absence of sound from the specified activity, the
underwater environment is typically loud due to ambient sound. Ambient
sound is defined as environmental background sound levels lacking a
single source or point (Richardson et al., 1995), and the sound level
of a region is defined by the total acoustical energy being generated
by known and unknown sources. These sources may include physical (e.g.,
waves, earthquakes, ice, atmospheric sound), biological (e.g., sounds
produced by marine mammals, fish, and invertebrates), and anthropogenic
sound (e.g., vessels, dredging, aircraft, construction). A number of
sources contribute to ambient sound, including the following
(Richardson et al., 1995):
Wind and waves: The complex interactions between wind and
water surface, including processes such as breaking waves and wave-
induced bubble oscillations and cavitation, are a main source of
naturally occurring ambient noise for frequencies between 200 Hz and 50
kHz (Mitson, 1995). In general, ambient sound levels tend to increase
with increasing wind speed and wave height. Surf noise becomes
important near shore, with measurements collected at a distance of 8.5
km from shore showing an increase of 10 dB in the 100 to 700 Hz band
during heavy surf conditions.
Precipitation: Sound from rain and hail impacting the
water surface can become an important component of total noise at
frequencies above 500 Hz, and possibly down to 100 Hz during quiet
times.
Biological: Marine mammals can contribute significantly to
ambient noise levels, as can some fish and shrimp. The frequency band
for biological contributions is from approximately 12 Hz to over 100
kHz.
Anthropogenic: Sources of ambient noise related to human
activity include transportation (surface vessels and aircraft),
dredging and construction, oil and gas drilling and production, seismic
surveys, sonar, explosions, and ocean acoustic studies. Shipping noise
typically dominates the total ambient noise for frequencies between 20
and 300 Hz. In general, the frequencies of anthropogenic sounds are
below 1 kHz and, if higher frequency sound levels are created, they
attenuate rapidly (Richardson et al., 1995). Sound from identifiable
anthropogenic sources other than the activity of interest (e.g., a
passing vessel) is sometimes termed background sound, as opposed to
ambient sound. Representative levels of anthropogenic sound are
displayed in Table 2.
The sum of the various natural and anthropogenic sound sources at
any given location and time--which comprise ``ambient'' or
``background'' sound--depends not only on the source levels (as
determined by current weather conditions and levels of biological and
shipping activity) but also on the ability of sound to propagate
through the environment. In turn, sound propagation is dependent on the
spatially and temporally varying properties of the water column and sea
floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a result of the dependence on a
large number of varying factors, ambient sound levels can be expected
to vary widely over both coarse and fine spatial and temporal scales.
Sound levels at a given frequency and location can vary by 10-20 dB
from day to day (Richardson et al., 1995). The result is that,
depending on the source type and its intensity, sound from the
specified activity may be a negligible addition to the local
environment or could form a distinctive signal that may affect marine
mammals.
Table 2--Representative Sound Levels of Anthropogenic Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequency
Sound source range (Hz) Underwater sound level Reference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small vessels........................... 250-1,000 151 dB rms at 1 m......... Richardson et al., 1995.
Tug docking gravel barge................ 200-1,000 149 dB rms at 100 m....... Blackwell and Greene,
2002.
Vibratory driving of 72-in steel pipe 10-1,500 180 dB rms at 10 m........ Reyff, 2007.
pile.
Impact driving of 36-in steel pipe pile. 10-1,500 195 dB rms at 10 m........ Laughlin, 2007.
Impact driving of 66-in cast-in-steel- 10-1,500 195 dB rms at 10 m........ Reviewed in Hastings and
shell (CISS) pile. Popper, 2005.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Pier 1 project area is frequented by fishing vessels and
tenders; ferries, barges, tugboats; and other commercial and
recreational vessels that use the channel to access harbors and city
docks, fuel docks, processing plants where fish catches are offloaded,
and other commercial facilities. At the seafood processing plant, to
the southwest of Pier 1, fish are offloaded by vacuum hose straight
into the processing plant from the vessels' holds, and vessels raft up
three and four deep to the dock during peak fishing seasons. On the
northeast side of Pier 1 is the Petro Marine fuel dock, which services
a range of vessel sizes, including larger vessels that can be
accommodated by docking at Pier 1. Two boat harbors exist in Near
Island Channel, which house a number of commercial and recreational
marine vessels. The channel is also a primary route for local
[[Page 51218]]
vessel traffic to access waters outside the Gulf of Alaska.
High levels of vessel traffic are known to elevate background
levels of noise in the marine environment. For example, continuous
sounds for tugs pulling barges have been reported to range from 145 to
166 dB re 1 [mu]Pa rms at 1 meter from the source (Miles et al. 1987;
Richardson et al. 1995; Simmonds et al. 2004. Ambient underwater noise
levels in the Pier 1 project area are both variable and relatively
high, and are expected to mask some sounds of drilling, pile
installation, and pile extraction.
In-water construction activities associated with the project
include vibratory pile driving and removal, down-hole drilling, and
impact pile driving. There are two general categories of sound types:
Impulse and non-pulse (defined in the following). Vibratory pile
driving is considered to be continuous or non-pulsed while impact pile
driving is considered to be an impulse or pulsed sound type. The
distinction between these two sound types is important because they
have differing potential to cause physical effects, particularly with
regard to hearing (e.g., Ward, 1997 in Southall et al., 2007). Please
see Southall et al., (2007) for an in-depth discussion of these
concepts. Note that information related to impact hammers is included
here for comparison. Pulsed sound sources (e.g., explosions, gunshots,
sonic booms, impact pile driving) produce signals that are brief
(typically considered to be less than one second), broadband, atonal
transients (ANSI, 1986; Harris, 1998; NIOSH, 1998; ISO, 2003; ANSI,
2005) and occur either as isolated events or repeated in some
succession. Pulsed sounds are all characterized by a relatively rapid
rise from ambient pressure to a maximal pressure value followed by a
rapid decay period that may include a period of diminishing,
oscillating maximal and minimal pressures, and generally have an
increased capacity to induce physical injury as compared with sounds
that lack these features.
Non-pulsed sounds can be tonal, narrowband, or broadband, brief or
prolonged, and may be either continuous or non-continuous (ANSI, 1995;
NIOSH, 1998). Some of these non-pulsed sounds can be transient signals
of short duration but without the essential properties of pulses (e.g.,
rapid rise time). Examples of non-pulsed sounds include those produced
by vessels, aircraft, machinery operations such as drilling or
dredging, vibratory pile driving, and active sonar systems (such as
those used by the U.S. Navy). The duration of such sounds, as received
at a distance, can be greatly extended in a highly reverberant
environment.
The likely or possible impacts of the proposed pile driving program
at Pier 1 on marine mammals could involve both non-acoustic and
acoustic stressors. Potential non-acoustic stressors could result from
the physical presence of the equipment and personnel. Any impacts to
marine mammals are expected to primarily be acoustic in nature.
Acoustic stressors could include effects of heavy equipment operation,
pile installation and pile removal at Pier 1.
Marine Mammal Hearing
When considering the influence of various kinds of sound on the
marine environment, it is necessary to understand that different kinds
of marine life are sensitive to different frequencies of sound. Based
on available behavioral data, audiograms have been derived using
auditory evoked potentials, anatomical modeling, and other data,
Southall et al. (2007) designate ``functional hearing groups'' for
marine mammals and estimate the lower and upper frequencies of
functional hearing of the groups. The functional groups and the
associated frequencies are indicated below (though animals are less
sensitive to sounds at the outer edge of their functional range and
most sensitive to sounds of frequencies within a smaller range
somewhere in the middle of their functional hearing range):
Low frequency cetaceans (13 species of mysticetes):
functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 7 Hz and
30 kHz;
Mid-frequency cetaceans (32 species of dolphins, six
species of larger toothed whales, and 19 species of beaked and
bottlenose whales): functional hearing is estimated to occur between
approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz;
High frequency cetaceans (eight species of true porpoises,
six species of river dolphins, Kogia, the franciscana, and four species
of cephalorhynchids): functional hearing is estimated to occur between
approximately 200 Hz and 180 kHz;
Phocid pinnipeds in Water: functional hearing is estimated
to occur between approximately 75 Hz and 75 kHz; and
Otariid pinnipeds in Water: functional hearing is
estimated to occur between approximately 100 Hz and 40 kHz.
As mentioned previously in this document, nine marine mammal
species (seven cetacean and two pinniped) may occur in the project
area. Of the two species likely to occur in the proposed project area,
one is classified as a mid-frequency cetacean (i.e., killer whale), and
one is classified as a high-frequency cetaceans (i.e., harbor porpoise)
(Southall et al., 2007). Additionally, harbor seals are classified as
members of the phocid pinnipeds in water functional hearing group while
Steller sea lions and California sea lions are grouped under the
Otariid pinnipeds in water functional hearing group. A species'
functional hearing group is a consideration when we analyze the effects
of exposure to sound on marine mammals.
Acoustic Impacts
Potential Effects of Pile Driving Sound--The effects of sounds from
pile driving might result in one or more of the following: Temporary or
permanent hearing impairment, non-auditory physical or physiological
effects, behavioral disturbance, and masking (Richardson et al., 1995;
Gordon et al., 2004; Nowacek et al., 2007; Southall et al., 2007). The
effects of pile driving on marine mammals are dependent on several
factors, including the size, type, and depth of the animal; the depth,
intensity, and duration of the pile driving sound; the depth of the
water column; the substrate of the habitat; the standoff distance
between the pile and the animal; and the sound propagation properties
of the environment. Impacts to marine mammals from pile driving
activities are expected to result primarily from acoustic pathways. As
such, the degree of effect is intrinsically related to the received
level and duration of the sound exposure, which are in turn influenced
by the distance between the animal and the source. The further away
from the source, the less intense the exposure should be. The substrate
and depth of the habitat affect the sound propagation properties of the
environment. Shallow environments are typically more structurally
complex, which leads to rapid sound attenuation. In addition,
substrates that are soft (e.g., sand) would absorb or attenuate the
sound more readily than hard substrates (e.g., rock) which may reflect
the acoustic wave. Soft porous substrates would also likely require
less time to drive the pile, and possibly less forceful equipment,
which would ultimately decrease the intensity of the acoustic source.
In the absence of mitigation, impacts to marine species would be
expected to result from physiological and behavioral responses to both
the type and strength of the acoustic signature (Viada et al., 2008).
The type and severity of
[[Page 51219]]
behavioral impacts are more difficult to define due to limited studies
addressing the behavioral effects of impulse sounds on marine mammals.
Potential effects from impulse sound sources can range in severity from
effects such as behavioral disturbance or tactile perception to
physical discomfort, slight injury of the internal organs and the
auditory system, or mortality (Yelverton et al., 1973).
Hearing Impairment and Other Physical Effects--Marine mammals
exposed to high intensity sound repeatedly or for prolonged periods can
experience hearing threshold shift (TS), which is the loss of hearing
sensitivity at certain frequency ranges (Kastak et al., 1999; Schlundt
et al., 2000; Finneran et al., 2002, 2005). TS can be permanent (PTS),
in which case the loss of hearing sensitivity is not recoverable, or
temporary (TTS), in which case the animal's hearing threshold would
recover over time (Southall et al., 2007). Marine mammals depend on
acoustic cues for vital biological functions, (e.g., orientation,
communication, finding prey, avoiding predators); thus, TTS may result
in reduced fitness in survival and reproduction. However, this depends
on the frequency and duration of TTS, as well as the biological context
in which it occurs. TTS of limited duration, occurring in a frequency
range that does not coincide with that used for recognition of
important acoustic cues, would have little to no effect on an animal's
fitness. Repeated sound exposure that leads to TTS could cause PTS. PTS
constitutes injury, but TTS does not (Southall et al., 2007). The
following subsections discuss in somewhat more detail the possibilities
of TTS, PTS, and non-auditory physical effects.
Temporary Threshold Shift--TTS is the mildest form of hearing
impairment that can occur during exposure to a strong sound (Kryter,
1985). While experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold rises, and a sound
must be stronger in order to be heard. In terrestrial mammals, TTS can
last from minutes or hours to days (in cases of strong TTS). For sound
exposures at or somewhat above the TTS threshold, hearing sensitivity
in both terrestrial and marine mammals recovers rapidly after exposure
to the sound ends. Few data on sound levels and durations necessary to
elicit mild TTS have been obtained for marine mammals, and none of the
published data concern TTS elicited by exposure to multiple pulses of
sound. Available data on TTS in marine mammals are summarized in
Southall et al. (2007).
Given the available data, the received level of a single pulse
(with no frequency weighting) might need to be approximately 186 dB re
1 [mu]Pa\2\-s (i.e., 186 dB sound exposure level [SEL] or approximately
221-226 dB p-p [peak]) in order to produce brief, mild TTS. Exposure to
several strong pulses that each have received levels near 190 dB rms
(175-180 dB SEL) might result in cumulative exposure of approximately
186 dB SEL and thus slight TTS in a small odontocete, assuming the TTS
threshold is (to a first approximation) a function of the total
received pulse energy.
The above TTS information for odontocetes is derived from studies
on the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) and beluga whale
(Delphinapterus leucas). There is no published TTS information for
other species of cetaceans. However, preliminary evidence from a harbor
porpoise exposed to pulsed sound suggests that its TTS threshold may
have been lower (Lucke et al., 2009). As summarized above, data that
are now available imply that TTS is unlikely to occur unless
odontocetes are exposed to pile driving pulses stronger than 180 dB re
1 [mu]Pa rms.
Permanent Threshold Shift--When PTS occurs, there is physical
damage to the sound receptors in the ear. In severe cases, there can be
total or partial deafness, while in other cases the animal has an
impaired ability to hear sounds in specific frequency ranges (Kryter,
1985). There is no specific evidence that exposure to pulses of sound
can cause PTS in any marine mammal. However, given the possibility that
mammals close to a sound source can incur TTS, it is possible that some
individuals might incur PTS. Single or occasional occurrences of mild
TTS are not indicative of permanent auditory damage, but repeated or
(in some cases) single exposures to a level well above that causing TTS
onset might elicit PTS.
PTS is considered auditory injury (Southall et al., 2007).
Irreparable damage to the inner or outer cochlear hair cells may cause
PTS, however, other mechanisms are also involved, such as exceeding the
elastic limits of certain tissues and membranes in the middle and inner
ears and resultant changes in the chemical composition of the inner ear
fluids (Southall et al., 2007).
Relationships between TTS and PTS thresholds have not been studied
in marine mammals but are assumed to be similar to those in humans and
other terrestrial mammals, based on anatomical similarities. PTS might
occur at a received sound level at least several decibels above that
inducing mild TTS if the animal were exposed to strong sound pulses
with rapid rise time. Based on data from terrestrial mammals, a
precautionary assumption is that the PTS threshold for impulse sounds
(such as pile driving pulses as received close to the source) is at
least 6 dB higher than the TTS threshold on a peak-pressure basis and
probably greater than 6 dB (Southall et al., 2007). On an SEL basis,
Southall et al. (2007) estimated that received levels would need to
exceed the TTS threshold by at least 15 dB for there to be risk of PTS.
Thus, for cetaceans, Southall et al. (2007) estimate that the PTS
threshold might be an M-weighted SEL (for the sequence of received
pulses) of approximately 198 dB re 1 [mu]Pa\2\-s (15 dB higher than the
TTS threshold for an impulse). Given the higher level of sound
necessary to cause PTS as compared with TTS, it is considerably less
likely that PTS could occur.
Measured source levels from impact pile driving can be as high as
214 dB rms. Although no marine mammals have been shown to experience
TTS or PTS as a result of being exposed to pile driving activities,
captive bottlenose dolphins and beluga whales exhibited changes in
behavior when exposed to strong pulsed sounds (Finneran et al., 2000,
2002, 2005). The animals tolerated high received levels of sound before
exhibiting aversive behaviors. Experiments on a beluga whale showed
that exposure to a single watergun impulse at a received level of 207
kPa (30 psi) p-p, which is equivalent to 228 dB p-p, resulted in a 7
and 6 dB TTS in the beluga whale at 0.4 and 30 kHz, respectively.
Thresholds returned to within 2 dB of the pre-exposure level within
four minutes of the exposure (Finneran et al., 2002). Although the
source level of pile driving from one hammer strike is expected to be
much lower than the single watergun impulse cited here, animals being
exposed for a prolonged period to repeated hammer strikes could receive
more sound exposure in terms of SEL than from the single watergun
impulse (estimated at 188 dB re 1 [mu]Pa\2\-s) in the aforementioned
experiment (Finneran et al., 2002). However, in order for marine
mammals to experience TTS or PTS, the animals have to be close enough
to be exposed to high intensity sound levels for a prolonged period of
time. Based on the best scientific information available, these SPLs
are far below the thresholds that could cause TTS or the onset of PTS.
Non-auditory Physiological Effects--Non-auditory physiological
effects or injuries that theoretically might occur in
[[Page 51220]]
marine mammals exposed to strong underwater sound include stress,
neurological effects, bubble formation, resonance effects, and other
types of organ or tissue damage (Cox et al., 2006; Southall et al.,
2007). Studies examining such effects are limited. In general, little
is known about the potential for pile driving to cause auditory
impairment or other physical effects in marine mammals. Available data
suggest that such effects, if they occur at all, would presumably be
limited to short distances from the sound source and to activities that
extend over a prolonged period. The available data do not allow
identification of a specific exposure level above which non-auditory
effects can be expected (Southall et al., 2007) or any meaningful
quantitative predictions of the numbers (if any) of marine mammals that
might be affected in those ways. Marine mammals that show behavioral
avoidance of pile driving, including some odontocetes and some
pinnipeds, are especially unlikely to incur auditory impairment or non-
auditory physical effects.
Disturbance Reactions
Disturbance includes a variety of effects, including subtle changes
in behavior, more conspicuous changes in activities, and displacement.
Behavioral responses to sound are highly variable and context-specific
and reactions, if any, depend on species, state of maturity,
experience, current activity, reproductive state, auditory sensitivity,
time of day, and many other factors (Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok
et al., 2003; Southall et al., 2007).
Habituation can occur when an animal's response to a stimulus wanes
with repeated exposure, usually in the absence of unpleasant associated
events (Wartzok et al., 2003). Animals are most likely to habituate to
sounds that are predictable and unvarying. The opposite process is
sensitization, when an unpleasant experience leads to subsequent
responses, often in the form of avoidance, at a lower level of
exposure. Behavioral state may affect the type of response as well. For
example, animals that are resting may show greater behavioral change in
response to disturbing sound levels than animals that are highly
motivated to remain in an area for feeding (Richardson et al., 1995;
NRC, 2003; Wartzok et al., 2003).
Controlled experiments with captive marine mammals showed
pronounced behavioral reactions, including avoidance of loud sound
sources (Ridgway et al., 1997; Finneran et al., 2003). Observed
responses of wild marine mammals to loud pulsed sound sources
(typically seismic guns or acoustic harassment devices, but also
including pile driving) have been varied but often consist of avoidance
behavior or other behavioral changes suggesting discomfort (Morton and
Symonds, 2002; Thorson and Reyff, 2006; see also Gordon et al., 2004;
Wartzok et al., 2003; Nowacek et al., 2007). Responses to continuous
sound, such as vibratory pile installation, have not been documented as
well as responses to pulsed sounds.
With both types of pile driving, it is likely that the onset of
pile driving could result in temporary, short term changes in an
animal's typical behavior and/or avoidance of the affected area. These
behavioral changes may include (Richardson et al., 1995): changing
durations of surfacing and dives, number of blows per surfacing, or
moving direction and/or speed; reduced/increased vocal activities;
changing/cessation of certain behavioral activities (such as
socializing or feeding); visible startle response or aggressive
behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of
areas where sound sources are located; and/or flight responses (e.g.,
pinnipeds flushing into water from haul-outs or rookeries). Pinnipeds
may increase their haul-out time, possibly to avoid in-water
disturbance (Thorson and Reyff, 2006).
The biological significance of many of these behavioral
disturbances is difficult to predict, especially if the detected
disturbances appear minor. However, the consequences of behavioral
modification could be expected to be biologically significant if the
change affects growth, survival, or reproduction. Significant
behavioral modifications that could potentially lead to effects on
growth, survival, or reproduction include:
Changes in diving/surfacing patterns;
Habitat abandonment due to loss of desirable acoustic
environment; and
Cessation of feeding or social interaction.
The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic sound
depends on both external factors (characteristics of sound sources and
their paths) and the specific characteristics of the receiving animals
(hearing, motivation, experience, demography) and is difficult to
predict (Southall et al., 2007).
Auditory Masking--Natural and artificial sounds can disrupt
behavior by masking, or interfering with, a marine mammal's ability to
hear other sounds. Masking occurs when the receipt of a sound is
interfered with by another coincident sound at similar frequencies and
at similar or higher levels. Chronic exposure to excessive, though not
high-intensity, sound could cause masking at particular frequencies for
marine mammals that utilize sound for vital biological functions.
Masking can interfere with detection of acoustic signals such as
communication calls, echolocation sounds, and environmental sounds
important to marine mammals. It is important to distinguish TTS and
PTS, which persist after the sound exposure, from masking, which occurs
only during the sound exposure. Because masking (without resulting in
TS) is not associated with abnormal physiological function, it is not
considered a physiological effect, but rather a potential behavioral
effect.
Masking occurs at specific frequency bands so understanding the
frequencies that the animals utilize is important in determining any
potential behavioral impacts. Because sound generated from in-water
vibratory pile driving is mostly concentrated at low frequency ranges,
it may have less effect on high frequency echolocation sounds made by
porpoises. However, lower frequency man-made sounds are more likely to
affect detection of communication calls and other potentially important
natural sounds such as surf and prey sound. It may also affect
communication signals when they occur near the sound band and thus
reduce the communication space of animals (e.g., Clark et al., 2009)
and cause increased stress levels (e.g., Foote et al., 2004; Holt et
al., 2009).
Masking has the potential to impact species at the population or
community levels as well as at individual levels. Masking affects both
senders and receivers of the signals and can potentially in certain
circumstances have long-term chronic effects on marine mammal species
and populations. Recent research suggests that low frequency ambient
sound levels have increased by as much as 20 dB (more than three times
in terms of SPL) in the world's ocean from pre-industrial periods, and
that most of these increases are from distant shipping (Hildebrand,
2009). All anthropogenic sound sources, such as those from vessel
traffic, pile driving, and dredging activities, contribute to the
elevated ambient sound levels, thus intensifying masking.
Vibratory pile driving may potentially mask acoustic signals
important to marine mammal species. However, the short-term duration
and limited affected area would result in insignificant impacts from
masking.
Acoustic Effects, Airborne--Marine mammals that occur in the
project area could be exposed to airborne sounds associated with pile
driving that have
[[Page 51221]]
the potential to cause harassment, depending on their distance from
pile driving activities. Airborne pile driving sound would have less
impact on cetaceans than pinnipeds because sound from atmospheric
sources does not transmit well underwater (Richardson et al., 1995);
thus, airborne sound would only be an issue for pinnipeds either
hauled-out or looking with heads above water in the project area. Most
likely, airborne sound would cause behavioral responses similar to
those discussed above in relation to underwater sound. For instance,
anthropogenic sound could cause hauled-out pinnipeds to exhibit changes
in their normal behavior, such as reduction in vocalizations, or cause
them to temporarily abandon their habitat and move further from the
source. Studies by Blackwell et al. (2004) and Moulton et al. (2005)
indicate a tolerance or lack of response to unweighted airborne sounds
as high as 112 dB peak and 96 dB rms. However, all estimates for
distances that airborne sound could travel and exceed the harassment
threshold for in-air disturbance fall far short of the 1,300 meters to
the nearest known pinniped haulout, the Dog Bay float. Therefore,
airborne noise is not considered further in this application, and no
incidental take for airborne noise is requested.
Vessel Interaction
Besides being susceptible to vessel strikes, cetacean and pinniped
responses to vessels may result in behavioral changes, including
greater variability in the dive, surfacing, and respiration patterns;
changes in vocalizations; and changes in swimming speed or direction
(NRC 2003). There will be a temporary and localized increase in vessel
traffic during construction.
Potential Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat
The primary potential impacts to marine mammal habitat are
associated with elevated sound levels produced by vibratory and impact
pile driving and removal in the area. However, other potential impacts
to the surrounding habitat from physical disturbance are also possible.
Potential Pile Driving Effects on Prey--Construction activities
would produce continuous (i.e., vibratory pile driving, down-hole
drilling) sounds and pulsed (i.e. impact driving) sounds. Essential
Fish Habitat (EFH) has been designated within the project area for the
Alaska stocks of Pacific salmon, walleye pollock, Pacific cod,
yellowfin sole (Limanda aspera), arrowtooth flounder (Atheresthes
stomias), rock sole (Lepidopsetta spp.), flathead sole (Hippoglossoides
elassodon), sculpin (Cottidae), skate (Rajidae), and squid
(Teuthoidea). On 30 April 2013, informal EFH consultation was
initiated, and NMFS determined that the project would not adversely
affect EFH and did not offer any EFH conservation recommendations or
require further consultation (FHWA 2013).
Fish react to sounds that are especially strong and/or intermittent
low-frequency sounds. Short duration, sharp sounds can cause overt or
subtle changes in fish behavior and local distribution. Hastings and
Popper (2005) identified several studies that suggest fish may relocate
to avoid certain areas of sound energy. Additional studies have
documented effects of pile driving on fish, although several are based
on studies in support of large, multiyear bridge construction projects
(e.g., Scholik and Yan, 2001, 2002; Popper and Hastings, 2009). Sound
pulses at received levels of 160 dB may cause subtle changes in fish
behavior. SPLs of 180 dB may cause noticeable changes in behavior
(Pearson et al., 1992; Skalski et al., 1992). SPLs of sufficient
strength have been known to cause injury to fish and fish mortality.
The most likely impact to fish from pile driving activities at the
project area would be temporary behavioral avoidance of the area. The
duration of fish avoidance of this area after pile driving stops is
unknown, but a rapid return to normal recruitment, distribution and
behavior is anticipated. In general, impacts to marine mammal prey
species are expected to be minor and temporary due to the short
timeframe for the project.
Effects to Foraging Habitat--Pile installation may temporarily
increase turbidity resulting from suspended sediments. Any increases
would be temporary, localized, and minimal. DOT&PF must comply with
state water quality standards during these operations by limiting the
extent of turbidity to the immediate project area. In general,
turbidity associated with pile installation is localized to about a 25-
foot radius around the pile (Everitt et al. 1980). Cetaceans are not
expected to be close enough to the project pile driving areas to
experience effects of turbidity, and any pinnipeds will be transiting
the area and could avoid localized areas of turbidity. Therefore, the
impact from increased turbidity levels is expected to be discountable
to marine mammals. Furthermore, pile driving and removal at the project
site will not obstruct movements or migration of marine mammals.
Proposed Mitigation
In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA,
NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such
activity, ``and other means of effecting the least practicable impact
on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention
to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on
the availability of such species or stock for taking'' for certain
subsistence uses.
For the proposed project, DOT&PF worked with NMFS and proposed the
following mitigation measures to minimize the potential impacts to
marine mammals in the project vicinity. The primary purposes of these
mitigation measures are to minimize sound levels from the activities,
and to monitor marine mammals within designated zones of influence
corresponding to NMFS' current Level A and B harassment thresholds
which are depicted in Table 3 found later in the Estimated Take by
Incidental Harassment section.
DOT&PF committed to the use of both impact and vibratory hammers
for pile installation and will implement a soft-start procedure.
Mitigation &Monitoring Protocols--Monitoring would be conducted
before, during, and after pile driving and removal activities. In
addition, observers shall record all incidents of marine mammal
occurrence, regardless of distance from activity, and shall document
any behavioral reactions in concert with distance from piles being
driven. Observations made outside the shutdown zone will not result in
shutdown; that pile segment would be completed without cessation,
unless the animal approaches or enters the shutdown zone, at which
point all pile driving activities would be halted. Monitoring will take
place from 30 minutes prior to initiation through 20 minutes post-
completion of pile driving activities. Pile driving activities include
the time to remove a single pile or series of piles, as long as the
time elapsed between uses of the pile driving equipment is no more than
thirty minutes. Please see Appendix A of the application for details on
the marine mammal monitoring plan developed by the DOT&PF's with NMFS'
cooperation.
The following additional measures apply to visual monitoring:
(1) Monitoring will be conducted by qualified observers, who will
be placed at the best vantage point(s) practicable to monitor for
marine mammals and implement shutdown/delay procedures
[[Page 51222]]
when applicable by calling for the shutdown to the hammer operator.
These vantage points include Jett A or the barge. Qualified observers
are trained biologists, with the following minimum qualifications:
(a) Visual acuity in both eyes (correction is permissible)
sufficient for discernment of moving targets at the water's surface
with ability to estimate target size and distance; use of binoculars
may be necessary to correctly identify the target;
(b) Advanced education in biological science or related field
(undergraduate degree or higher required);
(c) Experience and ability to conduct field observations and
collect data according to assigned protocols (this may include academic
experience);
(d) Experience or training in the field identification of marine
mammals, including the identification of behaviors;
(e) Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the
construction operation to provide for personal safety during
observations;
(f) Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations
including but not limited to the number and species of marine mammals
observed; dates and times when in-water construction activities were
conducted; dates and times when in-water construction activities were
suspended to avoid potential incidental injury from construction sound
of marine mammals observed within a defined shutdown zone; and marine
mammal behavior; and
(g) Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with
project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals
observed in the area as necessary.
(2) Prior to the start of pile driving activity, the shutdown zone
will be monitored for 30 minutes to ensure that it is clear of marine
mammals. Pile driving will only commence once observers have declared
the shutdown zone clear of marine mammals; animals will be allowed to
remain in the shutdown zone (i.e., must leave of their own volition)
and their behavior will be monitored and documented. The shutdown zone
may only be declared clear, and pile driving started, when the entire
shutdown zone is visible (i.e., when not obscured by dark, rain, fog,
etc.). In addition, if such conditions should arise during impact pile
driving that is already underway, the activity would be halted.
If a marine mammal approaches or enters the shutdown zone during
the course of pile driving operations, activity will be halted and
delayed until either the animal has voluntarily left and been visually
confirmed beyond the shutdown zone or 20 minutes have passed without
re-detection of the animal. Monitoring will be conducted throughout the
time required to drive a pile.
Ramp Up or Soft Start--The use of a soft start procedure is
believed to provide additional protection to marine mammals by warning
or providing a chance to leave the area prior to the hammer operating
at full capacity, and typically involves a requirement to initiate
sound from the hammer at reduced energy followed by a waiting period.
This procedure is repeated two additional times. It is difficult to
specify the reduction in energy for any given hammer because of
variation across drivers. The project will utilize soft start
techniques for all vibratory and impact pile driving. We require the
DOT&PF to initiate sound from vibratory hammers for fifteen seconds at
reduced energy followed by a 1-minute waiting period, with the
procedure repeated two additional times. For impact driving, we require
an initial set of three strikes from the impact hammer at reduced
energy, followed by a 1-minute waiting period, then two subsequent
three strike sets. Soft start will be required at the beginning of each
day's pile driving work and at any time following a cessation of pile
driving of 20 minutes or longer.
If a marine mammal is present within the Level A harassment zone,
ramping up will be delayed until the animal(s) leaves the Level A
harassment zone. Activity will begin only after the Wildlife Observer
has determined, through sighting, that the animal(s) has moved outside
the Level A harassment zone.
If a Steller sea lion, harbor seal, harbor porpoise, or killer
whale is present in the Level B harassment zone, ramping up will begin
and a Level B take will be documented. Ramping up will occur when these
species are in the Level B harassment zone whether they entered the
Level B zone from the Level A zone, or from outside the project area.
If any marine mammal other than Steller sea lions, harbor seals,
harbor porpoises, or killer whales is present in the Level B harassment
zone, ramping up will be delayed until the animal(s) leaves the zone.
Ramping up will begin only after the Wildlife Observer has determined,
through sighting, that the animal(s) has moved outside the harassment
zone.
Pile Caps--Pile caps will be used during all impact pile-driving
activities.
In addition to the measures described later in this section, the
DOT&PF would employ the following standard mitigation measures:
(a) Conduct briefings between construction supervisors and crews,
marine mammal monitoring team, and DOT&PF staff prior to the start of
all pile driving activity, and when new personnel join the work, in
order to explain responsibilities, communication procedures, marine
mammal monitoring protocol, and operational procedures.
(b) For in-water heavy machinery work other than pile driving
(using, e.g., standard barges, tug boats, barge-mounted excavators, or
clamshell equipment used to place or remove material), if a marine
mammal comes within 10 m, operations shall cease and vessels shall
reduce speed to the minimum level required to maintain steerage and
safe working conditions.
Monitoring and Shutdown for Pile Driving
The following measures would apply to DOT&PF's mitigation through
shutdown and disturbance zones:
Shutdown Zone--For all pile driving activities, the DOT&PF's will
establish a shutdown zone. Shutdown zones are intended to contain the
area in which SPLs equal or exceed the 180/190 dB rms acoustic injury
criteria, with the purpose being to define an area within which
shutdown of activity would occur upon sighting of a marine mammal (or
in anticipation of an animal entering the defined area), thus
preventing injury of marine mammals. A conservative 4-meter shutdown
zone will be in effect for Steller sea lions and harbor seals. The
estimated shutdown zone for Level A injury to harbor porpoises and
killer whales would be 15 meters. DOT&PF, however, would implement a
minimum shutdown zone of 10 m radius for all marine mammals around all
vibratory pile driving and removal activities. These precautionary
measures are intended to further reduce the unlikely possibility of
injury from direct physical interaction with construction operations.
Disturbance Zone--Disturbance zones are the areas in which sound
pressure levels (SPLs) equal or exceed 120 dB rms (for continuous
sound) for pile driving installation and removal. Disturbance zones
provide utility for monitoring conducted for mitigation purposes (i.e.,
shutdown zone monitoring) by establishing monitoring protocols for
areas adjacent to the shutdown zones. Monitoring of disturbance zones
enables observers to be aware of and communicate the presence of marine
mammals in the project area but outside the shutdown zone and thus
prepare for potential
[[Page 51223]]
shutdowns of activity. However, the primary purpose of disturbance zone
monitoring is for documenting incidents of Level B harassment;
disturbance zone monitoring is discussed in greater detail later (see
``Proposed Monitoring and Reporting''). Nominal radial distances for
disturbance zones are shown in Table 4 later in this notice. During
impact driving, the Level B harassment zone shall extend to 225 meters
for Steller sea lions, harbor seals, harbor porpoises, and killer
whales. This 225 meter distance will serve as a shutdown zone for all
other marine mammals (humpback whale, Dall's porpoise, gray whale, fin
whale, or any other) to avoid Level B take. Level B take of humpback
whales, Dall's porpoises, gray whales, and fin whales is not requested
and will be avoided by shutting down before individuals of these
species enter the Level B zone.
During vibratory pile installation and removal, the Level B
harassment zone shall extend to 1,150 meters for Steller sea lions,
harbor seals, harbor porpoises, and killer whales. This 1,150-meter
distance will serve as a shutdown zone for all other marine mammals
(humpback whale, Dall's porpoise, gray whale, fin whale, or any other)
to avoid Level B take.
In order to document observed incidents of harassment, monitors
record all marine mammal observations, regardless of location. The
observer's location, as well as the location of the pile being driven,
is known from a GPS. The location of the animal is estimated as a
distance from the observer, which is then compared to the location from
the pile and the estimated zone of influence (ZOI) for relevant
activities (i.e., pile installation and removal). This information may
then be used to extrapolate observed takes to reach an approximate
understanding of actual total takes.
Time Restrictions--Work would occur only during daylight hours,
when visual monitoring of marine mammals can be conducted. To minimize
impacts to pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) fry and coho salmon (O.
kisutch) smolt, all in-water pile extraction and installation is
planned to be completed by 30 April 2016. If work cannot be completed
by 30 April, the DOT&PF refrain from impact pile installation without a
bubble curtain from May 1, through June 30 within the 12-hour period
beginning daily at the start of civil dawn (Marie 2015). ADF&G stated
that this is the daily time period when the majority of juvenile salmon
are moving through the project area, and a 12-hour quiet period may
protect migrating juvenile salmon from excessive noise (Frost 2015).
Impact pile installation would be acceptable without a bubble curtain
from May 1 through June 30 in the evenings, beginning at 12 hours past
civil dawn (Marie 2015).
Mitigation Conclusions
NMFS has carefully evaluated the applicant's proposed mitigation
measures and considered a range of other measures in the context of
ensuring that NMFS prescribes the means of affecting the least
practicable impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and
their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included
consideration of the following factors in relation to one another:
The manner in which, and the degree to which, the
successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize
adverse impacts to marine mammals.
The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to
minimize adverse impacts as planned.
The practicability of the measure for applicant
implementation.
Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed by NMFS should be able to
accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on
current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of
the general goals listed below:
1. Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals
wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).
2. A reduction in the numbers of marine mammals (total number or
number at biologically important time or location) exposed to received
levels of pile driving, or other activities expected to result in the
take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to
reducing harassment takes only).
3. A reduction in the number of times (total number or number at
biologically important time or location) individuals would be exposed
to received levels of pile driving, or other activities expected to
result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1,
above, or to reducing harassment takes only).
4. A reduction in the intensity of exposures (either total number
or number at biologically important time or location) to received
levels of pile driving, or other activities expected to result in the
take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to a, above, or to
reducing the severity of harassment takes only).
5. Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal
habitat, paying special attention to the food base, activities that
block or limit passage to or from biologically important areas,
permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary destruction/disturbance
of habitat during a biologically important time.
6. For monitoring directly related to mitigation--an increase in
the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more
effective implementation of the mitigation.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as
well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has preliminarily
determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of
effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammals species or
stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries,
mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
Proposed Monitoring and Reporting
In order to issue an ITA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, ``requirements pertaining to
the monitoring and reporting of such taking.'' The MMPA implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for
incidental take authorizations (ITAs) must include the suggested means
of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will
result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking
or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be
present in the proposed action area.
Monitoring measures prescribed by NMFS should accomplish one or
more of the following general goals:
1. An increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, both
within the mitigation zone (thus allowing for more effective
implementation of the mitigation) and in general to generate more data
to contribute to the analyses mentioned below,
2. An increase in our understanding of how many marine mammals are
likely to be exposed to levels of pile driving that we associate with
specific adverse effects, such as behavioral harassment, TTS, or PTS.
3. An increase in our understanding of how marine mammals respond
to stimuli expected to result in take and how anticipated adverse
effects on individuals (in different ways and to varying degrees) may
impact the population, species, or stock (specifically through effects
on annual rates of recruitment or survival) through any of the
following methods:
[ssquf] Behavioral observations in the presence of stimuli compared
to
[[Page 51224]]
observations in the absence of stimuli (need to be able to accurately
predict received level, distance from source, and other pertinent
information);
[ssquf] Physiological measurements in the presence of stimuli
compared to observations in the absence of stimuli (need to be able to
accurately predict received level, distance from source, and other
pertinent information);
[ssquf] Distribution and/or abundance comparisons in times or areas
with concentrated stimuli versus times or areas without stimuli;
4. An increased knowledge of the affected species; and
5. An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness of certain
mitigation and monitoring measures.
The DOT&PF submitted a marine mammal monitoring plan as part of the
IHA application for this project, which can be found at
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm. The plan may
be modified or supplemented based on comments or new information
received from the public during the public comment period.
Visual Marine Mammal Observation
The DOT&PF will collect sighting data and behavioral responses to
construction for marine mammal species observed in the region of
activity during the period of activity. All observers will be trained
in marine mammal identification and behaviors and are required to have
no other construction-related tasks while conducting monitoring. The
DOT&PF will monitor the shutdown zone and disturbance zone before,
during, and after pile driving. The Marine Mammal Observers (MMOs) and
DOT&PF authorities will meet to determine the most appropriate
observation platform(s) for monitoring during pile installation and
extraction.
Based on our requirements, the Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan would
implement the following procedures for pile driving:
Individuals meeting the minimum qualifications identified
in the applicant's monitoring plan (Appendix A of the application)
would monitor Level A and Level B harassment zones during pile driving
and extraction activities.
The area within the Level B harassment threshold for
impact driving will be monitored by appropriately stationed MMOs. Any
marine mammal documented within the Level B harassment zone during
impact driving would constitute a Level B take (harassment), and will
be recorded and reported as such.
During Impact and vibratory pile driving, a shutdown zone
will be established to include all areas where the underwater SPLs are
anticipated to equal or exceed the Level A (injury) criteria for marine
mammals (180 dB isopleth for cetaceans; 190 dB isopleth for pinnipeds).
Pile installation will not commence or will be suspended temporarily if
any marine mammals are observed within or approaching the area.
The individuals will scan the waters within each
monitoring zone activity using binoculars (Vector 10X42 or equivalent),
spotting scopes (Swarovski 20-60 zoom or equivalent), and visual
observation.
Use a hand-held or boat-mounted GPS device or rangefinder
to verify the required monitoring distance from the project site.
If waters exceed a sea-state which restricts the
observers' ability to make observations within the marine mammal
shutdown zone (e.g. excessive wind or fog), pile installation will
cease. Pile driving will not be initiated until the entire shutdown
zone is visible.
Conduct pile driving and extraction activities only during
daylight hours from sunrise to sunset when it is possible to visually
monitor marine mammals.
The waters will be scanned 30 minutes prior to commencing
pile driving at the beginning of each day, and prior to commencing pile
driving after any stoppage of 20 minutes or greater. If marine mammals
enter or are observed within the designated marine mammal shutdown zone
during or 20 minutes prior to pile driving, the monitors will notify
the on-site construction manager to not begin until the animal has
moved outside the designated radius.
The waters will continue to be scanned for at least 20
minutes after pile driving has completed each day, and after each
stoppage of 20 minutes or greater.
Data Collection
We require that observers use approved data forms. Among other
pieces of information, the DOT&PF will record detailed information
about any implementation of shutdowns, including the distance of
animals to the pile and description of specific actions that ensued and
resulting behavior of the animal, if any. In addition, the DOT&PF will
attempt to distinguish between the number of individual animals taken
and the number of incidents of take. We require that, at a minimum, the
following information be collected on the sighting forms:
Date and time that monitored activity begins or ends;
Construction activities occurring during each observation
period;
Weather parameters (e.g., percent cover, visibility);
Water conditions (e.g., sea state, tide state);
Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of
marine mammals;
Description of any observable marine mammal behavior
patterns, including bearing and direction of travel and distance from
pile driving activity;
Distance from pile driving activities to marine mammals
and distance from the marine mammals to the observation point;
Locations of all marine mammal observations; and
Other human activity in the area.
Proposed Reporting Measures
The DOT&PF would provide NMFS with a draft monitoring report within
90 days of the conclusion of the proposed construction work. This
report will detail the monitoring protocol, summarize the data recorded
during monitoring, and estimate the number of marine mammals that may
have been harassed. If no comments are received from NMFS within 30
days, the draft final report will constitute the final report. If
comments are received, a final report must be submitted within 30 days
after receipt of comments.
In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly
causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the IHA
(if issued), such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury or
mortality (e.g., ship-strike, gear interaction, and/or entanglement),
the DOT&PF would immediately cease the specified activities and
immediately report the incident to Jolie Harrison
(Jolie.Harrison@NOAA.gov), Chief of the Permits and Conservation
Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and Aleria Jensen
(Aleria.Jensen@noaa.gov), Alaska Stranding Coordinator. The report
would include the following information:
Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the
incident;
Name and type of vessel involved;
Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
Description of the incident;
Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding
the incident;
Water depth;
Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction,
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24
hours preceding the incident;
[[Page 51225]]
Species identification or description of the animal(s)
involved;
Fate of the animal(s); and
Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if
equipment is available).
Activities would not resume until NMFS is able to review the
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS would work with the DOT&PF
to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further
prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. The DOT&PF would not be
able to resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter,
email, or telephone.
In the event that the DOT&PF discovers an injured or dead marine
mammal, and the lead MMO determines that the cause of the injury or
death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less than
a moderate state of decomposition as described in the next paragraph),
the DOT&PF would immediately report the incident to Jolie Harrison
(Jolie.Harrison@nooa.gov), Chief of the Permits and Conservation
Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and Aleria Jensen
(Aleria.Jensen@noaa.gov), Alaska Stranding Coordinator.
The report would include the same information identified in the
paragraph above. Activities would be able to continue while NMFS
reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS would work with the
DOT&PF to determine whether modifications in the activities are
appropriate.
In the event that the DOT&PF discovers an injured or dead marine
mammal, and the lead MMO determines that the injury or death is not
associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA
(e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced
decomposition, or scavenger damage), the DOT&PF would report the
incident to Jolie Harrison (Jolie.Harrison@noaa.gov), Chief of the
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,
the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, and the NMFS West Coast Stranding Hotline and/or by
email to Aleria Jensen (Aleria.Jensen@noaa.gov), Alaska Stranding
Coordinator, within 24 hours of the discovery. The DOT&PF would provide
photographs or video footage (if available) or other documentation of
the stranded animal sighting to NMFS and the Marine Mammal Stranding
Network.
Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here,
section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as: ``. . . any act of
pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment];
or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal
stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns,
including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].''
All anticipated takes would be by Level A and Level B harassment
resulting from vibratory pile driving and removal. Level A harassment
has the potential to cause injury to a marine mammal or marine mammal
stock while Level B harassment may result in temporary changes in
behavior. Note that lethal takes are not expected due to the proposed
mitigation and monitoring measures that are expected to minimize the
possibility of such take.
If a marine mammal responds to a stimulus by changing its behavior
(e.g., through relatively minor changes in locomotion direction/speed
or vocalization behavior), the response may or may not constitute
taking at the individual level, and is unlikely to affect the stock or
the species as a whole. However, if a sound source displaces marine
mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a prolonged
period, impacts on animals or on the stock or species could potentially
be significant (e.g., Lusseau and Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007). Given
the many uncertainties in predicting the quantity and types of impacts
of sound on marine mammals, it is common practice to estimate how many
animals are likely to be present within a particular distance of a
given activity, or exposed to a particular level of sound.
Upland work can generate airborne sound and create visual
disturbance that could potentially result in disturbance to marine
mammals (specifically, pinnipeds) that are hauled out or at the water's
surface with heads above the water. However, because there are no
regular haul-outs in close proximity to Pier 1, NMFS believes that
incidents of incidental take resulting from airborne sound or visual
disturbance are unlikely.
DOT&PF has requested authorization for the incidental taking of
small numbers of killer whale, harbor porpoise, Steller sea lion, and
harbor seal near the Pier 1 project area that may result from impact
and vibratory pile driving, vibratory pile removal and down-hole
drilling construction activities associated with the dock improvement
project at Pier 1.
In order to estimate the potential incidents of take that may occur
incidental to the specified activity, we must first estimate the extent
of the sound field that may be produced by the activity and then
consider in combination with information about marine mammal density or
abundance in the project area. We first provide information on
applicable sound thresholds for determining effects to marine mammals
before describing the information used in estimating the sound fields,
the available marine mammal density or abundance information, and the
method of estimating potential incidences of take.
Sound Thresholds
We use the following generic sound exposure thresholds to determine
when an activity that produces sound might result in impacts to a
marine mammal such that a take by harassment might occur.
Table 3--Underwater Injury and Disturbance Threshold Decibel Levels for Marine Mammals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criterion Criterion definition Threshold *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A harassment................... PTS (injury) conservatively 190 dB RMS for pinnipeds
based on TTS.** 180 dB RMS for cetaceans.
Level B harassment................... Behavioral disruption for 160 dB RMS.
impulse noise (e.g., impact
pile driving).
Level B harassment................... Behavioral disruption for non- 120 dB RMS.
pulse noise (e.g., vibratory
pile driving, drilling).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All decibel levels referenced to 1 micropascal (re: 1 [mu]Pa). Note all thresholds are based off root mean
square (RMS) levels.
** PTS = Permanent Threshold Shift; TTS = Temporary Threshold Shift.
[[Page 51226]]
Distance to Sound Thresholds
The sound field in the project area is the existing ambient noise
plus additional construction noise from the proposed project. The
primary components of the project expected to affect marine mammals is
the sound generated by impact pile driving, vibratory pile driving,
vibratory pile removal and down-hole drilling. Direct pull and
clamshell removal of old timber piles do not produce noise levels
expected to impact marine mammals, although, depending on conditions,
these may require vibratory hammer removal.
After vibratory hammering has installed the pile through the
overburden to the top of the bedrock layer, the vibratory hammer will
be removed, and the down-hole drill will be inserted through the pile.
The head extends below the pile and the drill rotates through soils and
rock. The drilling/hammering takes place below the sediment layer and,
as the drill advances, below the bedrock layer as well. Underwater
noise levels are relatively low because the impact is taking place
below the substrate rather than at the top of the piling, which limits
transmission of noise through the water column. Additionally, there is
a drive shoe welded on the bottom of the pile and the upper portion of
the bit rests on the shoe, which aids in advancement of the pile as
drilling progresses. When the proper depth is achieved, the drill is
retracted and the pile is left in place. Down-hole drilling is
considered a pulsed noise due to periodic impacts from the drill below
ground level (PND Engineers 2013). Impact hammering typically generates
the loudest noise associated with pile driving, but for the Pier 1
project, use will be limited to a few blows per permanent 24-inch pile.
Several factors are expected to minimize the potential impacts of
pile-driving and drilling noise associated with the project:
The soft sediment marine seafloor and shallow waters in
the proposed project area.
Land forms across the channel that will block the noise
from spreading .
The relatively high background noise level in the project
area.
Sound will dissipate relatively rapidly in the shallow waters over
soft seafloors in the project area (NMFS 2013). St. Herman Harbor
(Figure 1-2 in the application), where the Dog Bay float is located, is
protected from the Pier 1 construction noise by land projections and
islands, which will block and redirect sound. Near Island and Kodiak
Island, on either side of Near Island Channel, prevent the sound from
travelling underwater to the north, south, and southeast, restricting
the noise to the channel.
The project includes direct pulling and possibly vibratory removal
of 13-inch timber and 16-inch steel piles; vibratory installation and
removal of temporary steel pipe or H-piles; vibratory installation and
down-hole drilling of permanent 24-inch steel pipe piles; and vibratory
installation of 18-inch steel pipe piles and 16-inch timber piles (16
inches is the typical butt/top dimension, and these are typically
around 12-inches in diameter at the pile tip/bottom). Each 24-inch pile
will also be subject to a few blows from an impact hammer for proofing.
No data are available for vibratory removal of piles, so it will be
conservatively assumed that vibratory removal of piles will produce the
same source level as vibratory installation.
Vibratory extraction and installation of timber piles will be
estimated to generate 152 dB rms at 16 meters as is shown in Table 6-3
of the application (Laughlin 2011). Vibratory extraction of 16-inch
steel piles will be conservatively estimated to generate the same sound
as installation of 24-inch piles (162 dB rms at 10 meters).
Little information is available for sound generated during
vibratory installation or removal of steel H-piles; however, ICF Jones
& Stokes and Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. (2009) reported that the
typical noise level during vibratory hammering was 147 dB rms at 10
meters for 10-inch steel H-piles and 150 dB rms at 10 meters for 12-
inch steel H-piles. Vibratory installation and removal of temporary
steel pipe or H-piles will therefore be estimated to generate 150 dB
rms at 10 meters (Table 6-3).
Vibratory installation of a 24-inch steel pile generated 162 dB rms
measured at 10 meters (Laughlin 2010a). Vibratory installation of 12-
inch and 36-inch steel piles generated 150 and 170 dB rms at 10 meters,
respectively (Maine Department of Transportation and Eastport Port
Authority 2014), further supporting the intermediate estimate of 162 dB
rms for driving 24-inch steel piles (Table 6-3).
Vibratory installation of 18-inch steel piles will be
conservatively estimated to generate the same sound as driving of 24-
inch piles (162 dB rms at 10 meters). No data are available for the
vibratory installation of 12-inch timber piles; therefore, vibratory
installation of 12-inch timber piles will also be conservatively
estimated to generate the same sound level as installation of 24-inch
steel piles (Table 6-3).
Dazey et al. (2012) measured sound levels generated by down-hole
drilling and found the average calculated source SPL to be 133 dB rms.
URS (2011) reported that down-hole drilling methods generate pulses
with a maximum sound source level of 165 dB (re 1 [mu]Pa at 1 meter) at
200 Hz. The 160-dB isopleth (Level B harassment for pulsed noise
sources) for a down-hole drill was estimated to be 3 meters during a
project in Australia that included installation of piles (URS 2011).
Down-hole drilling will therefore be estimated to generate 160 dB rms
at 3 meters (Table 6-3).
Impact driving of 24-inch steel piles is commonly assumed to
generate 189 dB rms measured at 10 meters (WSDOT 2010). Laughlin (2006)
reported that use of Micarta caps resulted in 7- to 8-dB reductions in
sound level. A conservative reduction of 6 dB therefore yields an
estimate of 183 dB rms at 10 meters if pile caps are used (Table 6-3).
Underwater Sound Propagation Formula--Pile driving generates
underwater noise that can potentially result in disturbance to marine
mammals in the project area. Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease in
acoustic intensity as an acoustic pressure wave propagates out from a
source. TL parameters vary with frequency, temperature, sea conditions,
current, source and receiver depth, water depth, water chemistry, and
bottom composition and topography. The general formula for underwater
TL is:
TL = B * log10 (R1/R2),
where:
TL = transmission loss in dB
R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from the driven
pile, and
R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the initial
measurement.
NMFS typically recommends a default practical spreading loss of 15
dB per tenfold increase in distance. However, for this analysis for the
Pier 1 project area, a TL of 18Log(R/10) (i.e., 18-dB loss per tenfold
increase in distance) was used for vibratory pile driving and a 17Log
TL(R/10) function was used for impact driving (Illingworth & Rodkin
2014). TL values were based on measured attenuation rates in Hood Canal
in the State of Washington (Illingworth & Rodkin 2013), where the
marine environment is assumed to be similar to marine conditions in the
Pier 1 project area. Illingworth & Rodkin (2013, 2014) have applied
these same TL values to a test pile project proposed at the Port of
Anchorage, and other
[[Page 51227]]
researchers have measured similar attenuation rates for pile-driving
projects (Caltrans 2012). Field measurements of TL can be as high as 22
to 29 dB per tenfold increase in distance in some locations (e.g., Knik
Arm, Alaska; Blackwell 2005), and the use of these values is therefore
considered a conservative application.
Distances to the harassment isopleths vary by marine mammal type
and pile extraction/driving tool. The Level B harassment isopleth
during impact pile driving is 225 meters when pile caps are used; 1,136
meters during vibratory pile driving; and 3 meters during down-hole
drilling (Table 6-6; Figure 6-1). The Level B harassment monitoring
zone for vibratory pile driving will be rounded up to 1,150 meters for
the Pier 1 project. Level A harassment of Steller sea lions would occur
only within 4 meters if pile caps are used during impact hammering, or
within 9 meters if pile caps are not used as is shown in Table 4.
Table 4--Distances in Meters From Pier 1 Construction Activity to NMFS' Level A and Level B Harassment
Thresholds (Isopleths) for Different Pile Installation and Extraction Methods and Pile Types, Assuming a 125-dB
Background Noise Level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A Level B
-----------------------------------------------
Method, Pile Type Pinnipeds and
Pinnipeds Cetaceans Cetaceans
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory Hammer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timber pile extraction.......................................... <1 <1 506
Steel H-piles................................................... <1 <1 167
24-inch steel piles............................................. <1 1 1136
18-inch steel piles............................................. <1 1 1136
16-inch timber piles............................................ <1 1 1136
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Down-hole Drill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24-inch steel piles............................................. <1 <1 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact Hammer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With caps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24-inch steel piles............................................. 4 15 225
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without caps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24-inch steel piles............................................. 9 34 508
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that the actual area insonified by pile driving activities is
significantly constrained by local topography relative to the total
threshold radius. The actual insonified area was determined using a
straight line-of-sight projection from the anticipated pile driving
locations. Distances to the underwater sound isopleths for Level B and
Level A are illustrated respectively in Figure 6-1 and Figure 6-2 in
the application.
The method used for calculating potential exposures to impact and
vibratory pile driving noise for each threshold was estimated using
local marine mammal data sets, the Biological Opinion, best
professional judgment from state and federal agencies, and data from
IHA estimates on similar projects with similar actions. All estimates
are conservative and include the following assumptions:
All pilings installed at each site would have an
underwater noise disturbance equal to the piling that causes the
greatest noise disturbance (i.e., the piling furthest from shore)
installed with the method that has the largest ZOI. The largest
underwater disturbance ZOI would be produced by vibratory driving steel
and timber piles. The ZOIs for each threshold are not spherical and are
truncated by land masses on either side of the channel which would
dissipate sound pressure waves.
Exposures were based on estimated work days. Numbers of
days were based on an average production rate of 80 days of vibratory
driving, 22 days of impact driving and 60 days of down-hole drilling.
Note that impact driving is likely to occur only on days when vibratory
driving occurs.
In absence of site specific underwater acoustic
propagation modeling, the practical spreading loss model was used to
determine the ZOI.
Steller Sea Lions
Incidental take was estimated for Steller sea lions by assuming
that, within any given day, about 40 unique individual Steller sea
lions may be present at some time during that day within the Level B
harassment zone during active pile extraction or installation. This
estimate was derived from the following information, previously
described in the FR in the section
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity
Pinniped population estimates are typically made when the animals
are hauled out and available to be counted. Steller sea lions hauled
out on the Dog Bay float are believed to represent the Kodiak Harbor
population. Aerial surveys from 2004 through 2006 indicated peak winter
(October-April) counts at the Dog Bay float ranging from 27 to 33
animals (Wynn et al. 2011). Counts in February 2015 during a site visit
by HDR biologists ranged from approximately 28 to 45 Steller sea lions.
More than 100 Steller sea lions were counted on the Dog Bay float at
times in spring 2015, although the mean number was much smaller (Wynne
2015b). Together, this information may indicate a maximum population of
about 120 Steller sea lions that uses the Kodiak harbor area.
Steller sea lions found in more ``natural'' settings do not usually
eat every day, but tend to forage every 1-
[[Page 51228]]
2 days and return to haulouts to rest between foraging trips (Merrick
and Loughlin 1997; Rehburg et al. 2009). This means that on any given
day a maximum of about 60 Steller sea lions from the local population
may be foraging. Note that there are at least four other seafood
processing facilities in Kodiak that operate concurrently with the one
located next to Pier 1, and all are visited by local Steller sea lions
looking for food (Wynne 2015a). The seafood processing facility
adjacent to the Pier 1 project site is not the only source of food for
local Steller sea lions that inhabit the harbor area. The foraging
habits of Steller sea lions using the Dog Bay float and Kodiak harbor
area are not documented, but it is reasonable to assume that, given the
abundance of readily available food, not every Steller sea lion in the
area visits the seafood processing plant adjacent to Pier 1 every day.
If about half of the foraging Steller sea lions visit the seafood
processing plant adjacent to Pier 1, it is estimated that about 30
unique individual Steller sea lions likely pass through the Pier 1
project area each day and could be exposed to Level B harassment. To be
conservative, exposure is estimated at 40 unique individual Steller sea
lions per day.
It is assumed that Steller sea lions may be present every day, and
also that take will include multiple harassments of the same
individual(s) both within and among days, which means that these
estimates are likely an overestimate of the number of individuals.
Expected durations of pile extraction and driving were estimated in
Section 1.4 of the application. For each pile extraction or
installation activity, the calculation for Steller sea lion exposures
to underwater noise is therefore estimated as:
Exposure estimate = (number of animals exposed > sound thresholds)/day
* number of days of activity
An estimated total of 3,200 Steller sea lions (40 sea lions/day *
80 days of pile installation or extraction) could be exposed to noise
at the Level B harassment level during vibratory and impact pile
driving (Table 5). The expected take from exposure to noise from down-
hole drilling is expected to be very low because of the low noise
levels produced by this type of pile installation, and the 3-meter
distance to the Level B isopleth. Potential exposure at the Level B
harassment level for down-hole drilling is estimated at 60 Steller sea
lions, roughly one every one to two days.
Table 5--Numbers of Potential Exposures of Steller Sea Lions to Level A and Level B Harassment Noise From Pile
Driving Based on Predicted Underwater Noise Levels Resulting From Project Activities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory and Down-hole drill Impact hammer
impact -------------------------------------
-------------------
Level B Level B Level A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Days......................................... 80 60 22
Number of Steller Sea Lion Exposures................... 3,200 60 30
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The attraction of sea lions to the seafood processing plant
increases the possibility of individual Steller sea lions occasionally
entering the Level A harassment zone before they are observed and
before pile driving can be shut down. Even with marine mammal observers
present at all times during pile installation, it is possible that sea
lions could approach quickly and enter the Level A harassment zone,
even as pile driving activity is being shut down. This likelihood is
increased by the high level of sea lion activity in the area, with
Steller sea lions following vessels and swimming around vessels at the
neighboring dock. It is possible that a single sea lion could be taken
each day that impact pile driving occurs. As such, NMFS proposes an
additional 22 Level A takes plus a roughly 30 percent contingency of 8
additional takes, for a total of 30 takes for Level A harassment.
Potential for Level A harassment of Steller sea lions is estimated to
only occur during impact hammering due to the very small Level A
harassment zones for all other construction activities.
Harbor Seals
Harbor seals are expected to be encountered in low numbers, if at
all, within the project area. However, based on the known range of the
South Kodiak stock, and occasional sightings during monitoring of
projects at other locations on Kodiak Island, NMFS proposes 40 Level B
takes (1 take every other day) of harbor seals by exposure to
underwater noise over the duration of construction activities.
Harbor Porpoises
Harbor porpoises are expected to be encountered in low numbers, if
at all, within the project area. However, based on the known range of
the Gulf of Alaska stock and occasional sightings during monitoring of
projects at other locations on Kodiak Island, NMFS proposes 40 Level B
takes (1 take every other day) of harbor porpoises by exposure to
underwater noise over the duration of construction activities.
Killer Whales
Resident killer whales are rarely sighted in the project area and,
therefore, NMFS is not proposing the take of any resident killer
whales. Transient killer whales are expected to be encountered in the
project area occasionally, although no data exist to quantify killer
whale attendance. Killer whales are expected to be in the Kodiak harbor
area sporadically from January through April and to enter the project
area in low numbers. Based on the known range and behavior of the
Alaska Resident stock and the Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and
Bering Sea Transient stocks, it is reasonable to estimate that 6
individual whales may enter the project area twice a month from
February through May. NMFS therefore proposes 48 Level B takes (6
killer whales/visit * 2 visits/month * 4 months) of killer whales by
exposure to underwater noise over the duration of construction
activities.
[[Page 51229]]
Table 6--Summary of the Estimated Numbers of Marine Mammals Potentially Exposed to Level A and Level B
Harassment Noise Levels Species
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Level injury Level B
threshold threshold harassment
Species cetaceans pinnipeds threshold Total
(180 dB) (190 dB) (160 dB)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steller sea lion................................ NA 30 3,260 3,290
Harbor seal..................................... NA 0 40 40
Harbor porpoise................................. 0 NA 40 40
Killer whale.................................... 0 NA 48 48
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 0 30 3,388 3,418
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NA indicates Not Applicable.
Analysis and Preliminary Determinations
Negligible Impact
Negligible impact is ``an impact resulting from the specified
activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably
likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival'' (50 CFR 216.103). A
negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-
level effects). An estimate of the number of Level B harassment takes,
alone, is not enough information on which to base an impact
determination. In addition to considering estimates of the number of
marine mammals that might be ``taken'' through behavioral harassment,
NMFS must consider other factors, such as the likely nature of any
responses (their intensity, duration, etc.), the context of any
responses (critical reproductive time or location, migration, etc.), as
well as the number and nature of estimated Level A harassment takes,
the number of estimated mortalities, effects on habitat, and the status
of the species.
To avoid repetition, the discussion of our analyses applies to all
the species listed in Table 6, given that the anticipated effects of
this pile driving project on marine mammals are expected to be
relatively similar in nature. There is no information about the size,
status, or structure of any species or stock that would lead to a
different analysis for this activity, else species-specific factors
would be identified and analyzed.
Pile extraction, pile driving, and down-hole drilling activities
associated with the reconstruction of the Pier 1 Kodiak Ferry Terminal
and Dock, as outlined previously, have the potential to disturb or
displace marine mammals. Specifically, the specified activities may
result in take, in the form of Level A (injury) and Level B harassment
(behavioral disturbance), from underwater sounds generated from pile
driving. Potential takes could occur if individuals of these species
are present in the insonified zone when pile driving is under way.
The takes from Level B harassment will be due to potential
behavioral disturbance and TTS. The takes from Level A harassment will
be due to potential PTS. No mortality is anticipated given the nature
of the activity and measures designed to minimize the possibility of
injury to marine mammals. The potential for these outcomes is minimized
through the construction method and the implementation of the planned
mitigation measures. Specifically, the use of impact driving will be
limited to an estimated maximum of 3 hours over the course of 80 days
of construction, and will likely require less time. Each 24-inch pile
will require about five blows of an impact hammer to confirm that piles
are set into bedrock for a maximum time expected of 1 minute of impact
hammering per pile (88 piles x 1 minute/per pile = 88 minutes).
Vibratory driving will be necessary for an estimated maximum of 75
hours and down-hole drilling will require a maximum of 550 hours.
Vibratory driving and down-hole drilling do not have significant
potential to cause injury to marine mammals due to the relatively low
source levels produced and the lack of potentially injurious source
characteristics. The likelihood that marine mammal detection ability by
trained observers is high under the environmental conditions described
for the reconstruction of the Pier 1 Kodiak Ferry Terminal and Dock
further enables the implementation of shutdowns to limit injury,
serious injury, or mortality.
The DOT&PF's proposed activities are localized and of short
duration. The entire project area is limited to the Pier 1 area and its
immediate surroundings. Actions covered under the Authorization would
include extracting 196 13-inch timber piles, 14 16-inch steel piles,
installing 88 temporary steel or H-piles, extracting those 88 piles,
installing 88 24-inch steel piles, 10 18-inch steel piles and 8 16-inch
timber piles.
These localized and short-term noise exposures may cause auditory
injury to a small number of Steller sea lions, as well as short-term
behavioral modifications in killer whales, Steller sea lions, harbor
porpoises, and harbor seals. Moreover, the proposed mitigation and
monitoring measures are expected to reduce the likelihood of injury and
behavior exposures. Additionally, no important feeding and/or
reproductive areas for marine mammals are known to be near the proposed
action area. Therefore, the take resulting from the proposed project is
not reasonably expected to and is not reasonably likely to adversely
affect the marine mammal species or stocks through effects on annual
rates of recruitment or survival.
The project also is not expected to have significant adverse
effects on affected marine mammals' habitat, including Steller sea lion
critical habitat. The project activities would not modify existing
marine mammal habitat. The activities may cause some fish to leave the
area of disturbance, thus temporarily impacting marine mammals'
foraging opportunities in a limited portion of the foraging range; but,
because of the short duration of the activities and the relatively
small area of the habitat that may be affected, the impacts to marine
mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-term
negative consequences.
Effects on individuals that are taken by Level A harassment may
include permanent threshold shift. However, the possibility exists that
some of the sea lions frequenting the Kodiak harbor area are already
hearing-impaired or deaf (Wynne 2014). Fishermen have been known to
protect their gear and catches by using ``seal bombs'' in an effort to
disperse sea lions away from fishing
[[Page 51230]]
gear. Sound levels produced by seal bombs are well above levels that
are known to cause Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS, temporary loss of
hearing) and Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS, partial or full loss of
hearing) in marine mammals (Wynne 2014). The use of seal bombs requires
appropriate permits from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives. Seal bombs may be used as long as such use does not result
in mortality or serious injury of a marine mammal; however, seal bombs
should not be used on any ESA-listed species (Laws 2015). Although no
studies have been published that document hearing-impaired sea lions in
the area, this possibility is important to note as it pertains to
mitigation measures that will be effective for this project.
Sea lions in the Kodiak harbor area are habituated to fishing
vessels and are skilled at gaining access to fish. It is likely that
some of the same animals follow local vessels to the nearby fishing
grounds and back to town. It is also likely that hearing-impaired or
deaf sea lions are among the sea lions that attend the seafood
processing facility adjacent to the Pier 1 construction site. It is not
known how a hearing-impaired or deaf sea lion would respond to typical
mitigation efforts at a construction site such as ramping up of pile-
driving equipment. It is also unknown whether a hearing-impaired or
deaf sea lion would avoid pile-driving activity, or whether such an
animal might approach closely, even within the Level A harassment zone,
without responding to or being impacted by the noise level. If it is
observed that some sea lions found within the Level A harassment zone
do not respond to mitigation efforts, these animals may have previously
suffered injury in the form of PTS. Therefore, any additional auditory
injury associated with the Pier 1 project would be unlikely.
Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B harassment, on the
basis of reports in the literature as well as monitoring from other
similar activities, will likely be limited to reactions such as
increased swimming speeds, increased surfacing time, or decreased
foraging (if such activity were occurring) (e.g., Thorson and Reyff,
2006; Lerma, 2014). Most likely, individuals will simply move away from
the sound source and be temporarily displaced from the areas of pile
driving, although even this reaction has been observed primarily only
in association with impact pile driving. In response to vibratory
driving, pinnipeds (which may become somewhat habituated to human
activity in industrial or urban waterways) have been observed to orient
towards and sometimes move towards the sound. The pile extraction and
driving activities analyzed here are similar to, or less impactful
than, numerous construction activities conducted in other similar
locations, which have taken place with no reported injuries or
mortality to marine mammals, and no known long-term adverse
consequences from behavioral harassment. Repeated exposures of
individuals to levels of sound that may cause Level B harassment are
unlikely to result in hearing impairment or to significantly disrupt
foraging behavior. Thus, even repeated Level B harassment of some small
subset of the overall stock is unlikely to result in any significant
realized decrease in fitness for the affected individuals, and thus
would not result in any adverse impact to the stock as a whole.
In summary, this negligible impact analysis is founded on the
following factors: (1) The possibility of non-auditory injury, serious
injury, or mortality may reasonably be considered discountable; (2) the
anticipated incidents of Level B harassment consist of, at worst,
temporary modifications in behavior and; (3) the presumed efficacy of
the proposed mitigation measures in reducing the effects of the
specified activity to the level of least practicable impact. In
combination, we believe that these factors, as well as the available
body of evidence from other similar activities, demonstrate that the
potential effects of the specified activity will have only short-term
effects on individuals. The specified activity is not expected to
impact rates of recruitment or survival and will therefore not result
in population-level impacts.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and
mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine
mammal take from the DOT&PF's reconstruction of the Pier 1 Kodiak Ferry
Terminal and Dock will have a negligible impact on the affected marine
mammal species or stocks.
Small Numbers Analysis
Table 7 demonstrates the number of animals that could be exposed to
received noise levels that could cause Level A and Level B behavioral
harassment for the proposed work at the Pier 1 project site. The
analyses provided above represents between <0.01%-8.1% of the
populations of these stocks that could be affected by harassment. The
numbers of animals authorized to be taken for all species would be
considered small relative to the relevant stocks or populations even if
each estimated taking occurred to a new individual--an extremely
unlikely scenario. For pinnipeds, especially Steller sea lions,
occurring in the vicinity of Pier 1 there will almost certainly be some
overlap in individuals present day-to-day, and these takes are likely
to occur only within some small portion of the overall regional stock.
Table 7--Estimated Numbers and Percentage of Stock That May Be Exposed to Level A and B Harassment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Stock(s)
Species authorized abundance Percentage of
takes estimate total stock
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Killer Whale (Orcinus orca); Eastern N. Pacific, Gulf of Alaska, 48 587 8.1%
Aleutian Islands, and Bering Seat Transient Stock..............
Harbor Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena); Gulf of Alaska Stock....... 40 31,046 <0.01%
Steller Sea Lion (Eumetopias jubatus); wDPS Stock............... * 3,290 52,200 6.3
Harbor Seal (Phoca vitulina richardii); South Kodiak Stock...... 40 11,117 <0.01%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* (Includes 3,260 Level B and 30 Level A takes).
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring
measures, which are expected to reduce the number of marine mammals
potentially affected by the proposed action, NMFS preliminarily finds
that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken
[[Page 51231]]
relative to the populations of the affected species or stocks.
Impact on Availability of Affected Species for Taking for Subsistence
Uses
Alaska Natives have traditionally harvested subsistence resources
in the Kodiak area for many hundreds of years, particularly Steller sea
lions and harbor seals. No traditional subsistence hunting areas are
within the project vicinity, however; the nearest haulouts for Steller
sea lions and harbor seals are the Long Island and Cape Chiniak haul-
outs and the Marmot Island rookery, many miles away. These locations
are respectively 4, 12 and 30 nautical miles distant from the project
area. Since all project activities will take place within the immediate
vicinity of the Pier 1 site, the project will not have an adverse
impact on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence use at
locations farther away. No disturbance or displacement of sea lions or
harbor seals from traditional hunting areas by activities associated
with the Pier 1 project is expected. No changes to availability of
subsistence resources will result from Pier 1 project activities.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
There are two marine mammal species that are listed as endangered
under the ESA with confirmed or possible occurrence in the study area:
Humpback whale and Southern resident killer whale. For the purposes of
this IHA, NMFS determined that take of Southern resident killer whales
was highly unlikely given the rare occurrence of these animals in the
project area. A similar conclusion was reached for humpback whales. On
March 18, 2011, NMFS signed a Biological Opinion concluding that the
proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
humpback whales and may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect
Southern resident killer whales.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
NMFS is also preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and will
consider comments submitted in response to this notice as part of that
process. The EA will be posted at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm once it is finalized.
Proposed Incidental Harassment Authorization
As a result of these preliminary determinations, we propose to
issue an IHA to the DOT&PF for the Pier 1 Kodiak Ferry Terminal and
Dock Improvements Project provided the previously mentioned mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. The proposed
IHA language is provided next.
1. This Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) is valid from
September 30, 2015 through September 29, 2016.
2. This Authorization is valid only for in-water construction work
associated with the Pier 1 Kodiak Ferry Terminal and Dock Improvements
Project.
3. General Conditions:
(a) A copy of this IHA must be in the possession of the DOT&PF, its
designees, and work crew personnel operating under the authority of
this IHA.
(b) The species authorized for taking include killer whale (Orcinus
orca), Steller sea lion (Eumatopius jubatus), harbor porpoise (Phocoena
phocoena), and harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardii).
(c) The taking, by Level B harassment only, is limited to the
species listed in condition 3(b).
(d) The taking, by Level A harassment only, is limited Steller sea
lions.
(e) The taking by injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or
death of any of the species listed in condition 3(b) with the exception
of Steller sea lions or any taking of any other species of marine
mammal is prohibited and may result in the modification, suspension, or
revocation of this IHA.
(f) The DOT&PF shall conduct briefings between construction
supervisors and crews, marine mammal monitoring team, and staff prior
to the start of all in-water pile driving, and when new personnel join
the work, in order to explain responsibilities, communication
procedures, marine mammal monitoring protocol, and operational
procedures.
4. Mitigation Measures
The holder of this Authorization is required to implement the
following mitigation measures:
(a) Time Restriction: For all in-water pile driving activities, the
DOT&PF shall operate only during daylight hours when visual monitoring
of marine mammals can be conducted. To minimize impacts to pink salmon
(Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) fry and coho salmon (O. kisutch) smolt, all
in-water pile extraction and installation is planned to be completed by
April 30, 2016. If work cannot be completed by April 30, the DOT&PF
must refrain from impact pile installation without a bubble curtain
from May 1 through June 30 within the 12-hour period beginning daily at
the start of civil dawn. Impact pile installation would be acceptable
without a bubble curtain from May 1 through June 30 in the evenings,
beginning at 12 hours past civil dawn.
(b) Establishment of Level B Harassment (ZOI)
(i) Before the commencement of in-water pile driving activities,
the DOT&PF shall establish Level B behavioral harassment ZOI where
received underwater sound pressure levels (SPLs) are higher than 120 dB
(rms) re 1 [micro]Pa for and non-pulse sources (vibratory hammer). The
ZOI delineates where Level B harassment would occur. For vibratory
driving, the level B harassment area extends out to 1,150. This 1,150-
meter distance will serve as a shutdown zone for all other marine
mammals not listed in 3(b). During impact driving, the Level B
harassment zone shall extend to 225 meters for animals listed in 3(b).
This 225-meter distance will serve as a shutdown zone for all other
marine mammals not listed in 3(b).
(c) Establishment of shutdown zone
(i) For impact pile driving activities, the DOT&PF's will establish
a shutdown zone. Shutdown zones are intended to contain the area in
which SPLs equal or exceed the 180/190 dB rms acoustic injury criteria,
with the purpose being to define an area within which shutdown of
activity would occur upon sighting of a marine mammal (or in
anticipation of an animal entering the defined area), thus preventing
injury of marine mammals. A conservative 4-meter shutdown zone will be
in effect for Steller sea lions and harbor seals. The shutdown zone for
Level A injury to harbor porpoises and killer whales would be 15
meters.
(d) The Level A and Level B harassment zones will be monitored
throughout the time required to install or extract a pile. If a harbor
seal, harbor porpoise, or killer whale is observed entering the Level B
harassment zone, a Level B exposure will be recorded and behaviors
documented. That pile segment will be completed without cessation,
unless the animal approaches the Level A shutdown zone. Pile
installation or extraction will be halted immediately before the animal
enters the Level A zone.
(e) Use of Ramp Up/Soft Start
(i) The project will utilize soft start techniques for all
vibratory and impact pile driving. We require the DOT&PF to initiate
sound from vibratory hammers for fifteen seconds at reduced energy
followed by a 1-minute waiting period, with the procedure repeated two
additional times. For impact driving, we require an initial set of
three strikes
[[Page 51232]]
from the impact hammer at reduced energy, followed by a 1-minute
waiting period, then two subsequent three strike sets.
(ii) Soft start will be required at the beginning of each day's
pile driving work and at any time following a cessation of pile driving
of 20 minutes or longer.
(iii) If a marine mammal is present within the shutdown zone,
ramping up will be delayed until the animal(s) leaves the Level A
harassment zone. Activity will begin only after the MMO has determined,
through sighting, that the animal(s) has moved outside the Level A
harassment zone.
(iv) If a Steller sea lion, harbor seal, harbor porpoise, or killer
whale is present in the Level B harassment zone, ramping up will begin
and a Level B take will be documented. Ramping up will occur when these
species are in the Level B harassment zone whether they entered the
Level B zone from the Level A zone, or from outside the project area.
(v) If any marine mammal other than Steller sea lions, harbor
seals, harbor porpoises, or killer whales is present in the Level B
harassment zone, ramping up will be delayed until the animal(s) leaves
the zone. Ramping up will begin only after the Wildlife Observer has
determined, through sighting, that the animal(s) has moved outside the
harassment zone.
(f) Pile Caps--
(i) Pile caps will be used during all impact pile-driving
activities.
(g) Standard mitigation measures
(i) Conduct briefings between construction supervisors and crews,
marine mammal monitoring team, and DOT&PF staff prior to the start of
all pile driving and extraction activity, and when new personnel join
the work, in order to explain responsibilities, communication
procedures, marine mammal monitoring protocol, and operational
procedures.
(ii) For in-water heavy machinery work other than pile driving
(e.g., standard barges, tug boats, barge-mounted excavators, or
clamshell equipment used to place or remove material), if a marine
mammal comes within 10 meters, operations shall cease and vessels shall
reduce speed to the minimum level required to maintain steerage and
safe working conditions.
(h) The DOT&PF shall establish monitoring locations as described
below.
5. Monitoring and Reporting
The holder of this Authorization is required to report all
monitoring conducted under the IHA within 90 calendar days of the
completion of the marine mammal monitoring
(a) Visual Marine Mammal Monitoring and Observation
(i) At least one individual meeting the minimum qualifications
identified in Appendix A of the application by the DOT&PF will monitor
the shutdown and Level B harassment zones during impact and vibratory
pile driving.
(ii) During pile driving and extraction the shutdown zone, as
described in 4(b) will be monitored and maintained. Pile installation
or extraction will not commence or will be suspended temporarily if any
marine mammals are observed within or approaching the area of potential
disturbance.
(iii) The area within the Level B harassment threshold for pile
driving and extraction will be monitored by observers stationed to
provide adequate view of the harassment zone. Marine mammal presence
within this Level B harassment zone, if any, will be monitored. Pile
driving activity will not be stopped if marine mammals are found to be
present. Any marine mammal documented within the Level B harassment
zone during impact driving would constitute a Level B take
(harassment), and will be recorded and reported as such.
(iv) The individuals will scan the waters within each monitoring
zone activity using binoculars (Vector 10X42 or equivalent), spotting
scopes (Swarovski 20-60 zoom or equivalent), and visual observation.
(v) If waters exceed a sea-state which restricts the observers'
ability to make observations within the marine mammal buffer zone (the
100 meter radius) (e.g. excessive wind or fog), impact pile
installation will cease until conditions allow the resumption of
monitoring.
(vi) The waters will be scanned 30 minutes prior to commencing pile
driving at the beginning of each day, and prior to commencing pile
driving after any stoppage of 20 minutes or greater. If marine mammals
enter or are observed within the designated marine mammal shutdown zone
during or 20 minutes prior to impact pile driving, the monitors will
notify the on-site construction manager to not begin until the animal
has moved outside the designated radius.
(vii) The waters will continue to be scanned for at least 20
minutes after pile driving has completed each day,
(b) Data Collection
(i) Observers are required to use approved data forms. Among other
pieces of information, DOT&PF the DOT&PF will record detailed
information about any implementation of shutdowns, including the
distance of animals to the pile and description of specific actions
that ensued and resulting behavior of the animal, if any. In addition,
the DOT&PF will attempt to distinguish between the number of individual
animals taken and the number of incidents of take. At a minimum, the
following information be collected on the sighting forms:
1. Date and time that monitored activity begins or ends;
2. Construction activities occurring during each observation
period;
3. Weather parameters (e.g., percent cover, visibility);
4. Water conditions (e.g., sea state, tide state);
5. Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of marine
mammals;
6. Description of any observable marine mammal behavior patterns,
including bearing and direction of travel and distance from pile
driving activity;
7. Distance from pile driving activities to marine mammals and
distance from the marine mammals to the observation point;
8. Locations of all marine mammal observations; and
9. Other human activity in the area.
(c) Reporting Measures
(i) In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly
causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the IHA,
such as an injury (Level A harassment to animals other than Steller sea
lions), serious injury or mortality (e.g., ship-strike, gear
interaction, and/or entanglement), the DOT&PF would immediately cease
the specified activities and immediately report the incident to the
Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, and the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinators. The
report would include the following information:
1. Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
2. Name and type of vessel involved;
3. Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
4. Description of the incident;
5. Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the
incident;
6. Water depth;
7. Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction,
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
8. Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours
preceding the incident;
9. Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
10. Fate of the animal(s); and
11. Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is
available).
(ii) Activities would not resume until NMFS is able to review the
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS would work with the DOT&PF
to
[[Page 51233]]
determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further
prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. The DOT&PF would not be
able to resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter,
email, or telephone.
(iii) In the event that the DOT&PF discovers an injured or dead
marine mammal, and the lead MMO determines that the cause of the injury
or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less
than a moderate state of decomposition as described in the next
paragraph), the DOT&PF would immediately report the incident to the
Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, and the Alaska Stranding Hotline and/or by email to
the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinators. The report would include
the same information identified in the paragraph above. Activities
would be able to continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the
incident. NMFS would work with the DOT&PF to determine whether
modifications in the activities are appropriate.
(iv) In the event that the DOT&PF discovers an injured or dead
marine mammal, and the lead MMO determines that the injury or death is
not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA
(e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced
decomposition, or scavenger damage), the DOT&PF would report the
incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office
of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline
and/or by email to the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinator, within 24
hours of the discovery. The DOT&PF would provide photographs or video
footage (if available) or other documentation of the stranded animal
sighting to NMFS and the Marine Mammal Stranding Network.
6. This Authorization may be modified, suspended or withdrawn if
the holder fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein, or if
NMFS determines the authorized taking is having more than a negligible
impact on the species or stock of affected marine mammals.
Request for Public Comments
NMFS requests comment on our analysis, the draft authorization, and
any other aspect of the Notice of Proposed IHA for the DOT&PF's Kodiak
Ferry Terminal and Dock Improvements Project. Please include with your
comments any supporting data or literature citations to help inform our
final decision on DOT&PF's request for an MMPA authorization.
Dated: August 18, 2015.
Perry Gayaldo,
Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-20828 Filed 8-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P